Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

VIVISECTION (DOGS).

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to present a Petition signed by over 6,000 citizens of Manchester as follows:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth: That believing vivisection upon man's best friend the dog to be morally unjustifiable, scientifically useless, and dangerous and demoralising to the community, your Petitioners earnestly pray your Honourable House to pass a Bill withdrawing the sanction of the law from the practice. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed workpeople registered at the exchanges in Monmouthshire on statutory benefit and the number in receipt of assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board for the most recent date?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Monmouthshire at 27th April, 1936, with claims admitted for unemployment benefit and applications authorised for unem-

Ployment allowancer were as shown below:


Employment Exchange.
Claims admitted for unemployment benefit.
Applications authorised for unemployment allowances.


Abergavenny
…
135
348


Abertillery
…
610
2,271


Blackwood
…
348
1,235


Blaenavon
…
345
717


Blaina
…
387
1,191


Caldicot
…
51
117


Chepstow
…
191
186


Ebbw Vale
…
843
2,358


Monmouth
…
170
256


Newbridge
…
1,556
1,292


Newport
…
3,935
1,810


Newport Docks
…
1,687
705


Pontnewydd
…
307
893


Pontypool
…
1,423
2,462


Risca
…
1,038
1,276


Tredegar
…
455
1,598


Usk
…
32
75


Total
…
13,513
18,790

JUVENILES.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of juveniles registered as unemployed in the county of Carmarthen; and the comparative figures for England and Wales and the counties of Glamorgan, Monmouth and Brecknockshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: At 27th April, 1936, there were 980 unemployed juveniles, aged 14 and under 18 years, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Carmarthenshire. The corresponding figures for England and Wales, and for Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire and Brecknockshire were 97,660, 11,804, 2,820 and 173 respectively.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed juveniles on the registers at each of the following exchanges: Llanelly, Ammanford, Garnant, and Tumble; what percentage of juveniles are unemployed in those areas; and the comparative percentage for England and Wales?

Mr. BROWN: The numbers of unemployed juveniles, aged 14 and under 18 years, on the registers of these exchanges at 27th April were 412 at Llanelly, 223 at Ammanford, 77 at Garnant and 92 at Tumble. As there are no statistics show-


ing the numbers of juveniles in employment in these localities at 27th April, I am unable to express these figures as percentages of unemployment.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of juveniles registered as unemployed in the Rochdale, Heywood, Oldham, and Stockport areas in December, 1935, and March, 1936?

Mr. BROWN: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The numbers of unemployed juveniles, aged under 18 years, on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux at Rochdale, Heywood, Oldham and Stockport at these dates, were as shown below:



16th December, 1935.
23rd March, 1936.


Rochdale
…
…
104
119


Heywood
…
…
38
35


Oldham
…
…
181
262


Stockport
…
…
148
157

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Labour the number of children, and their ages, who have been sent from the distressed areas to obtain work in the borough of West Ham, and what work they have obtained?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the past 12 months, two girls aged 16 years, and one girl aged 17 years have been transferred from the distressed areas to residential domestic employment in the Queen Mary Hospital. No boys have been transferred to West Ham during the period.

PROPOSED STEELWORKS, JARROW.

Sir JOHN JARVIS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the site of the old steelworks and the adjoining shipyard at Jarrow arc suitable for the revival of the steel industry there, and that the starting of such works would find employment for some thousands of men, many of whom had been trained to this kind of heavy industry in this distressed area; and whether he has taken any action to encourage the starting of the proposed works?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have, of course, the fullest sympathy with any scheme which would afford increased employment, and particularly with one which would stimulate a revival of industry in the Special Areas. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies on this subject to be given to-day by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir J. JARVIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the project of a steelworks in Jarrow is in great jeopardy owing to the unreasonable attitude adopted in certain quarters, and will he do all he can to see that these men, who have been trained to steelwork, are given an opportunity of resuming their normal employment?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the answers to later questions on the subject.

Mr. A. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the erection of such a plant would be uneconomical and have the effect of throwing men on Tees-side out of work?

Sir J. JARVIS: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has taken any steps to remove the hindrances which have prevented the rebuilding of the steelworks at Jarrow-on-Tyne during the past 18 months; and, if not, whether, in view of the admitted inability of the present steelworks to produce the growing requirements of the country, he will see that such hindrances are removed;
(2) whether, seeing that the proposals for the steelworks at Jarrow are proceeding in the normal course, he will see what help can be given to the financing of this scheme; and that no financial hindrance be placed in the way of those desirous of raising capital for the revival of this industry?

Mr. MAGNAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that this country could, it is computed. when on full production, annually absorb 3,000,000 tons of basic bessemer steel, but that only 10 per cent. of s such steel is at present produced in this country; and whether he will take steps to further the erection of steelworks on the Tyne to increase the production of such material;
(2) whether he will consider preparing a scheme for the manufacture of steel with a variety of finishing processes which, whilst likely to be profitable in peace time, could be so equipped as to be available for the rapid production of armaments and munitions; and whether he will consider the claims of Jarrow-on-Tyne, one of the worst distressed areas, for the erection of such a plant forthwith.

Captain EUAN WALLACE. (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The proposal for a new steelworks at Jarrow is a matter primarily for the interests concerned, who are, I understand, still considering the possibilities of a scheme. There has been no proposal that the Government should undertake the manufacture of steel as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), and I am not aware that difficulty has been 'caused by the failure of responsible promoters of a scheme to obtain capital.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that on the Special Areas Reconstruction Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, as one of the achievements of the Government, that these steel works have already been started?

Sir J. JARVIS: Would it not be possible to take some further steps to elucidate the mystery as to why the scheme has been hindered for so long, and will my hon. and gallant Friend institute an inquiry at which the evidence of all parties concerned may be heard as to the reason for the delay, which is not only preventing unemployed workmen in Jarrow resuming employment, but keeping them definitely out of employment for 12 months longer than is necessary?

Captain WALLACE: I hope there is no mystery to elucidate. If my hon. Friend has any representations to make, we should be very glad to hear them.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman interest himself in the matter, having regard to the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Captain WALLACE: The Government do not intend to set up the steel works on their own.

MEANS TEST.

Mr, LUNN: asked the Minister of Labour under what section of the Unemployment Insurance Act the means test is applied to a man in receipt of statutory unemployment benefit; and under what section of the Act the Employment Exchanges are requiring men to explain how they spend the money they receive as insurance benefit?

Mr. E. BROWN: As my hon. Friend explained, in reply to the hon. Member's question on 21st May, no form of means test is applied to claimants for unemployment benefit. If, as I presume, the inquiries to which the hon. Member refers are made in connection with claims for dependant's benefit they arise out of the provision in Section 37, Sub-section (2), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, which requires the claimant, in respect of certain classes of dependants, to show that the dependant is wholly or mainly maintained by him.

Mr. LUNN: Is the idea of the committee which the right hon. Gentleman announced in answer to the Question No. 10 to direct people how to spend their money when they are in receipt of statutory benefit?

Mr. BROWN: That committee was much sought by Members on the other side of the House.

COST-OF-LIVING INDEX (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. W. ASTOR: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the committee which is to advise on the methods to be adopted in the collection by means of family budgets of information as to working-class expenditure?

Mr. E. BROWN: The following have been appointed to be a committee to advise the Minister of Labour as to the methods to be adopted in the collection of information, by means of family budgets, showing the approximate average weekly expenditure of working-class families on the items which should be taken into account in the construction of index numbers, designed to measure the percentage changes, from month to month,


in the cost of maintaining a present-day standard of living:

Mr. F. W. Leggett, C.B., Principal Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour (Chairman).
Mr. J. N. Beckett, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Health;
Mr. F. J. Blakemore, O.B.E., J.P., Past President of the National Chamber of Trade;
Professor A. L. Bowley, Sc.D., F.B.A., Professor of Statistics, University of London;
Mr. H. Crow, O.B.E., Principal, Scottish Office;
Mrs. W. Y. Darling, wife of Councillor W. Y. Darling, Edinburgh;
Mrs. C. S. Ganley, J.P., L.C.C., a member of the Management Committee of the London Co-operative Society;
Mr. J. Hallsworth, representing the Trades Union Congress General Council;
Dr. J. M. Hamill, O.B.E., M.D., D.Sc., Senior Medical Officer, Ministry of Health;
Mr. C. T. Houghton, Assistant Secretary, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries;
Mr. W. A. B. Iliff, M.B.E., Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Northern Ireland;
Mr. D. Caradog Jones, M.A., Lecturer in Social Statistics, University of Liverpool, and Director of the Social Survey of Merseyside;
Mr. Kenelm Kerr, O.B.E., representing the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations;
Mr. E. C. Ramsbottom, O.B.E., Director of Statistics, Ministry of Labour.
The secretary to the committee will be Mr. J. G. Cannell, Ministry of Labour, Queen Anne's Chambers, Broadway, Westminster, S.W.I.

Viscountess ASTOR: In view of the fact that this committee is to consider the question of family budgets, is it not a little hard to have on it so few women and so many men? It is scandalous.

Mr. BROWN: I should have thought that the Noble Lady would be very pleased with two ladies.

Viscountess ASTOR: Certainly not.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where this mass demonstration is to be held?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Are there any representatives of producers on the committee or do the members represent only distributors and consumers

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Gentleman will study the list he will see that the committee is representative of all points of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

PENSIONS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce at an early date legislation to amend the Police Pensions Acts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave on Thursday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sande-man Allen).

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the proposals of the Statutory Police Council were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in 1931, and when does he propose to introduce legislation?

Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the hon. Member that if he will look at the answer already given to another question, he will fit d that his question is answered.

TRAFFIC DUTY (LONDON).

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the number of police in the Metropolitan police area engaged upon traffic duty as at the last convenient date, as compared with the corresponding date in 1931; and whether he has any proposals under consideration for an alteration in the present strength of traffic police?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Thursday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen).

GERMAN SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the activities of the German secret service in this country, directed against individuals lawfully resident here, as partially disclosed in the Wesemann trial in Switzerland; what steps he is taking, or will take, to put a stop to such activities; and whether he will hold an investigation and report thereupon to the House?

Sir J. SIMON: Such activities are, of course, closely watched by the responsible authoritites. Appropriate action would be taken in any case where it was considered expedient. It would not, however, be in the public interests to detail the measures which are taken by the authorities to deal with activities of this kind.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the results of the policy that the Germans have pursued in Austria, Danzig, and the Saar, and will he inform Lord Londonderry that we are suspicious of his week-end party?

WARDER (BLOOD TRANSFUSION).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say anything regarding the case of Warder J. Jelly, of Wandsworth Prison?

Sir J. SIMON: On the morning of a day on which this officer was due to perform duty as a trade instructor, he stated that he had undertaken to attend at St. James's Hospital to give a, blood transfusion, and applied for leave to be absent from duty from 11 to 12 for this purpose. His application was made without previous warning, and, as the absence without notice of an officer detailed for essential duties seriously dis-organises the arrangements for the custody and employment of prisoners, he was told that he was not entitled to commit himself to an engagement during his hours of duty. The Governor explained the position to the hospital

authorities by telephone, and on learning that it would be difficult to obtain a substitute at short notice, the Governor agreed, as an exceptional case, to allow Officer Jelly to absent himself from duty in order to attend at the hour named. The officer on being so informed then refused to go, but I understand he subsequently attended the hospital during his dinner hour. On the following day he addressed to the Prison Commissioners a letter of protest couched in such terms that they could only regard it as insubordinate and as indicating that the officer did not appreciate his special responsibilities as trade instructor. In view of the terms of this letter, the Commissioners decided that he should no longer be employed as a trade instructor but should revert to discipline duty. The officer has since been interviewed, at his own request, by a Commissioner and an Assistant Commissioner of Prisons; but after reviewing the matter in the light of his representations, the Commissioners have found no reason to modify their original decision.

FASCISTS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. LESLIE: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent raid by a body of Fascists upon the rooms of the Social Credit Party at Liverpool, and the attack upon three young lads, two of whom had to be removed to hospital by the police, and in view of other recent acts of violence by Fascists, he will give consideration to the suppression of the Fascists organisation and prevent their attempt to usurp the powers of civil authority and to introduce methods of terrorism?

Sir J. SIMON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Liverpool police have taken energetic measures to trace those responsible for this alleged assault, and four persons have been committed for trial at Liverpool Assizes to be held on 9th June.

Mr. LESLIE: Is the Minister aware that the leader of this group, this would-be dictator, perambulates the country with a gang of bruisers, and at public meetings persons who put perfectly orderly questions are subjected to maltreatment, which often results in the effusion of blood?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the subject matter of the hon. Member's question on the Paper, I think the fact that four persons have been committed for trial and will be tried at the Assizes probably justifies us in waiting to see what is the result.

POLICE DETENTION, STRATFORD.

Mr. GROVES: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a man, while attending the Stratford Employment Exchange on 22nd May, was arrested by an officer in plain clothes on the ground that the numbers of his bicycle were not decipherable; that the man told the police officer he had owned the cycle for over four years; that he was requested to accompany the police officer to West Ham police station, where he was detained for two hours, and asked to sign a statement that he would appear at the station on Wednesday next or find a security of £5; why this man's bicycle was detained, although the police had evidence that he had lived in the neighbourhood for 40 years and was well known as a dock labourer; and whether he will ensure that this man's cycle is restored to him and compensation paid for any loss sustained?

Sir J. SIMON: I have obtained reports on this case from the Commissioner of Police, and am satisfied that the police had prima facie ground for the action they took; they have had many complaints of stolen cycles in Stratford, but I am glad to say that the police inquiry showed that this was not one of them. The man concerned was at the police station for just over an hour; his cycle was restored to him on 26th instant, an apology has been tendered to him for the inconvenience to which he was put, and he will be refunded such fares as he had to pay in seeking work while he was without his cycle.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. MACLAY: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the suggestion to build large underground car-parking garages in the congested areas of London and other cities; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking immediate steps to ensure that these buildings are erected in such a manner as to make them quickly

and easily convertible into large scale gas- and bomb-proof shelters for the use of the civil population in the event of war?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The cost of making underground garages proof against direct hits by high explosive bombs would be prohibitive, except in very special circumstances. The whole question of air raid shelters affording protection against gas and splinters from high explosive bombs is, however, under examination at the moment, and the possibility of making use of underground garages and of rendering them, and other places of shelter gas-proof and splinter-proof will be considered. The results will be embodied in an Air Raid Precautions Handbook on "Structural Precautions against Bombs and Gas." In the meantime, my Department would be glad to advise the architects of any proposed underground garages and to recommend the extent to which such garages should be used as shelters, having regard to the various considerations of safety involved.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does the hon. Gentleman know what proportion of the population could be sheltered in this fashion?

Mr. LLOYD: I could not say, but I should not suppose that it is a very great proportion.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a report may be expected from the committee set up to consider methods of defence against air attacks?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The committee and the scientists and others who are associated with it are continuously at work, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the lines on which work is proceeding.

Mr. MANDER: Are they presenting interim reports from time to time?

Sir P. SASSOON: The report is to be presented to the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the report to be published or not?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could not answer that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Home Secretary the number of offenders convicted for exceeding a speed limit in the year 1935 whose licence was not endorsed for some special reason, and the total number of convictions for exceeding the speed limit during the same period?

Sir J. SIMON: During the year ended 31st December, 1935, the total number of convictions resulting from all charges of exceeding a speed limit was 108,571. As a result of these convictions 246 driving licences were suspended, and 57,103 licences were endorsed but not suspended. These figures are given in the Return for 1935 of Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, which was presented to Parliament on 25th May. That will be published this week.

Mr. TURT0N: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is a danger in this case of the provisions of the Act of 1934 being administered so that the rule becomes the exception and the exception the rule?

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to that point, and I will look at the figures from that point of view.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons convicted of the offence of careless driving during the year 1935 whose licence was not endorsed for some special reason, and the total number of convictions for careless driving during the same period?

Sir J. SIMON: During the year ended 31st December, 1935, charges of careless driving resulted in 19,482 convictions. As a result of these convictions 1,025 driving licences were suspended, and 8,081 licences were endorsed but not suspended. These figures are given in the Return I referred to in reply to the last question.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of them were alcoholically sober —

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady must give notice of that question.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is only one supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

ROAD WIDENING (LADBROKE GROVE).

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister of Transport when the road widening at

the northern end of Ladbroke Grove, where it joins Harrow Road, will be completed?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It is anticipated that this work will be completed in about 12 months' time.

WESTERN AVENUE.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Minister of Transport what stage the negotiations have reached in connection with the eastward extension of Western Avenue through North Kensington; and when it is contemplated that they will be completed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed that the London County Council expect shortly to invite tenders for constructing a road bridge over the railway between Wood Lane and Latimer Road. I am conferring with the county council about the extension of Western Avenue further eastwards, but until agreement has been reached with the authorities concerned, I cannot say when this further extension will be commenced.

Mr. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman hasten the matter as much as possible because, if there is any considerable delay, it will hold up a very desirable housing improvement scheme in Kensington?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is my hope and my desire.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the scheme submitted to the Ministry some years ago for a road right through to Wanstead?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, I am in consultation with the London County Council.

PROPOSED BRIDGE, RIVER HUMBER.

Mr. QUIBELL: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the proposal to erect a bridge across the River Humber; and, if not, when he will be able to do so?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: At the moment I am unable to say more than that the proposal is under examination by my Department.

MOTOR VEHICLES (INSURANCE).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the facts disclosed recently at the Clerkenwell Police Court respecting the issue of cover notes and the irregular taking of premiums for the insurance of motor vehicles; whether he operates the Assurance Companies Act, 1935, so as to prevent the practices complained of; and, if the Act does not provide him with the necessary power, will he introduce appropriate amending legislation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This was a case where premiums were misappropriated by an agent. The insurance company concerned accepted liability, and I do not think that the case affords any ground for amending legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of fulltime students at the Royal College of Art during the last completed year, and the number who, having completed their course of training, are known to have since obtained industrial employment as designers or art workers.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of full-time students at the Royal College of Art in the session 1934–35 was 376. Of the 101 students who left the college at the end of the session having obtained their diploma, 21 are known to have taken up work as designers or art workers for industry or commerce, either in full-time appointments or as free lances. In addition, a number of students who took up part-time posts as teachers are believed also to be practising as designers.

Mr. DAY: Will the Minister say whether — [Interruption]

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I could not hear the hon. Member's supplementary question. Perhaps he will give me notice of it.

Mr. DAY: Will the Minister say whether the college is being carried on upon the lines for which it was originally founded?

COST (KENT AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the President of the Board of Education the average cost per child in average attendance in the elementary schools in Chislehurst, Kent, and similar information for Monmouthshire?

Mr. STANLEY: The Board have no information as to the average cost per child in average attendance in the elementary schools in Chislehurst, which is not a separate administrative unit. For the county of Kent it was £14 16s. 10d. in 1935–36 and for Monmouthshire £13 13s. 6d.

SCHOOL PREMISES.

Viscountess ASTOR: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the importance to the welfare of school-children of school premises having good ventilation, heating, water supply, sanitation, and playgrounds, he will cause a survey to be made of all school premises in county areas, in order to furnish information as to the number of school premises, provided and non-provided, respectively, in which unsatisfactory conditions obtain in any or all of the following respects: supply of water for drinking or for lavatory purposes; sanitary arrangements and cloakrooms; lighting, natural and artificial; ventilation; playgrounds; and damp walls and other structural disrepair?

Mr. STANLEY: The development of reorganisation, to which the board have called attention in Circular 1444, will during the next two years necessitate a survey of school penises from the point of view of the part which they are to play in the schemes for their districts. A survey of this nature will, I hope, achieve all the results the Noble Lady has in mind.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health the total of the loan debt of local authorities in South Wales and Monmouthshire?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): At 31st March, 1934—the latest date for which complete figures are available—the net outstanding debt of


the local authorities referred to was £51,934,381, of which £36,476,898 related to housing, small dwellings acquisition and trading services.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Have any of these loans been incurred without the consent of the Ministry of Health?

Sir W. SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the large increase in loan debt in South Wales and Monmouthshire, he will refuse his permission for further borrowing for a period of five years, unless it is a matter of urgency; and, before giving his sanction for further borrowing by local authorities, will lie have regard to the probable life of the area concerned as an industrial centre?

Sir K. WOOD: It is my policy, in considering applications for sanction to loans, to have regard to the financial position of the authority and to the industrial prospects of the area. In the case of local authorities with high rates whose financial position is difficult, loans are sanctioned only for urgent purposes.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those loans are in part due to the effect of the Government's policy upon South Wales?

Sir W. SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 239 of the Local Government Act, 1933, in order to ensure that whether county boroughs elect a system of district audit or of audit by professional accountants the ratepayers of county boroughs shall have the same right of inspection and objection to accounts as is at present enjoyed by ratepayers in other areas under Sections 224 and 266?

Sir K. WOOD: Auditors other than district auditors do not possess powers of disallowance and surcharge, and the amending legislation suggested would not, in my view, be apposite. My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that rights of inspection are conferred on local government electors and other persons in county boroughs as well as elsewhere by Section 283 of the Local Government Act, 1933.

Sir W. SMITHERS: Is it not a fact that certain local authorities have a preference for one of these methods

because it avoids publicity more than does the other?

Sir K. WOOD: I would not like to give an answer to a general question of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONS.

FISH DIET.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the desirability of encouraging the consumption of fish and of the frequent practice of throwing this commodity back into the sea when there is no market, he can state whether fish is included in the diet of persons in publicly-maintained institutions; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir K. WOOD: The dietaries in institutions maintained by local authorities do not require my approval; but as a result of recent inquiries I understand that it is the practice of the majority of authorities to provide the inmates of public assistance institutions with a fish dinner once a week. In addition, fish is frequently provided for breakfast in children's homes.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will my right hon. Friend persuade his colleagues at the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry to follow his example?

STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement on the question of the instructions issued by the public assistance committee of the Staffordshire County Council to the masters of all the Poor Law institutions within their area to search all inmates on their return from leave of absence?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that this instruction has now been withdrawn, and a revised instruction issued, directing masters to guard against inmates introducing to the institution Articles which are prohibited by the Statutory Orders and Regulations affecting Poor Law institutions in the county.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DEMOLITION, FINCHINGFIELD.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered


the protests submitted to him respecting the proposed demolition of picturesque houses in the village of Finchingfield, Essex; and whether he will take steps to see that, while adequate and suitable provision of working-class accommodation is encouraged, no unnecessary destruction of rural beauty and amenities takes place in that district?

Sir K. WOOD: I have received representations with regard to the orders to which the hon. Member refers. I have directed an inquiry into these orders, and pending consideration of the report of my inspector it would not be proper for me to make any statement on the particular orders. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that I am fully alive to the importance of the considerations mentioned in the second part of the question.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOUSING SITE) BILL.

Mr. CHARLETON: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any further statement to make relative to the London County Council (Housing Site) Bill and the decision of the London County Council as regards the alternative offer made by the Hon. Arthur Villiers to enable the council to add to Hackney Marshes suitable adjoining land and so free an equivalent area of the marshes for use as a housing site?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the London County Council at a meeting held on Tuesday last accepted the offer made by Mr. Villiers, and expressed their cordial appreciation of the public spirit which he has displayed. I should like to congratulate the council upon their successful efforts to assist the solution of the difficult problem of housing in East London without reducing the area of public open space in that district, and to express again my appreciation of the generous attitude adopted by Mr. Villiers. I wish also to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) towards the settlement of this complex question.

Mr. H. MORRISON: May I be permitted, if the House will forgive me, to say that all parties to the dispute are

much indebted to the Minister of Health for the successful result?

Mr. CROSSLEY: Can the Minister assure the House that the legal protection granted to open spaces and playing fields has been strengthened, and not weakened by this settlement?

Sir K. WOOD: indicated assent.

HOUSING ACT, 1935.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have made application for Exchequer grants in aid of accommodation to be provided, otherwise than in blocks of flats on expensive sites, for the abatement of overcrowding under the terms of Section 32 of the Housing Act, 1935: and also the number and amount of the grants approved by him under that Section up to the end of April, 1936?

Sir K. WOOD: Applications for subsidy under the Section cited by the hon. Member have been received from 23 local authorities, in respect of 1921 houses. Without in any way delaying the erection of the houses, it has been necessary in most cases to defer the decision on the subsidy question until further information is available, but subsidy amounting to £1,014 per annum for 20 years has been definitely granted in respect of 270 houses.

Mr. ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to issue a publication, with typical plans of large houses containing four and five bedrooms, for the assistance of local authorities in connection with their statutory duty to provide suitable alternative accommodation under the terms of the Housing Act, 1935, for large families at present living under overcrowded conditions?

Sir K. WOOD: The question raised by the hon. Member is at present under consideration. In the meantime, my Department have type plans of large houses which are available for the guidance of local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

PUERPERAL FEVER (MIDWIVES, QUARANTINE).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the


period of quarantine enforced on a midwife after attending a case of puerperal fever is long enough to ensure safety in attending succeeding cases?

Sir K. WOOD: The period of suspension in these cases is that laid down in the rules made by the Central Midwives Board, and I have no reason to suppose that it is insufficient.

Mr. SEXTON: Have representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman by the medical profession asking that he should look into that question?

Sir K. WOOD: That question had better be put down.

DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Health, whether he is satisfied that inoculation against diphtheria is such a proved success as to warrant advising compulsory use?

Sir K. WOOD: I am satisfied that artificial immunisation against diphtheria is based on sound scientific principles and has proved of value, but I should not be prepared to advise that its use should be made compulsory.

BRONCHITIS (MORTALITY RATE).

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Health the mortality rate from bronchitis in the year 1935 in the following administrative counties: Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Brecknock; and the comparative rate for England and Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Bronchitis—1935.


Mortality per million living.


England and Wales
388


Carmarthen Administrative County
362


Glamorgan Administrative County
577


Monmouth Administrative County
498


Brecknock Administrative County
397

The figures are provisional.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Health whether attendance at a juvenile instruction centre is accepted by him as satisfying the condition of full-time instruction at a day school for the payment of additional allowances or orphans' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1935?

Sir K. WOOD: Attendance at a juvenile instruction centre is normally accepted as qualifying a child for an additional allowance or orphan's pension, but the special circumstances of a particular case may make it an exception to the general rule. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind and will let me have particulars, I will be glad to look into it.

TERRITORIAL CAMPS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of publishing a list of those local authorities whose employés receive special facilities for attending camp if they are members of the Territorial Army; and a list of those local authorities who have decided not to give such facilities?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that this information is not in my possession.

MENTAL HOSPITAL, BARNSLEY (MAINTENANCE CHARGES).

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Health the statutory authority under which the Barnsley magistrates have recently made an order requiring a man to contribute towards the support of his married daughter who happens to be an inmate of a mental institution, and who is also supported by her husband?

Sir K. WOOD: I presume that the magistrates' order was made under the authority of Section 19 (2) of the Poor Law Act, 1930. That Sub-section enables public assistance authorities to obtain, on complaint to a petty sessional court, orders of maintenance upon the relations liable to maintain a poor person, and the father is included, by Section 14 of the Act, among the relations so liable.

Mr. POTTS: Can the Minister state whether the magistrates are in order, or otherwise?

Sir K. WOOD: I should not like to state that.

Mr. POTTS: If the Minister cannot tell us the answer to that question, how are we to know the position of magistrates?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly put a question down, I will try to give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BARLEY.

Sir R. W. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have only explored the possibility of voluntary undertakings regarding purchases of home-grown barley being given by the industrial consuming interests; and whether he will now consider requiring the industrial consuming interests to give something more than voluntary undertakings with regard to their purchases of home-grown barley?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 21st May to a question by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir R. W. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that it is possible for the largest pot-distilling company in this country to use only home-grown barley, he will take steps to compel other pot-distilling companies to use home-grown barley so long as it is obtainable?

Captain WALLACE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 21st May to a question by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. De Chair).

Sir R. W. SMITH: I have already referred to the question of 21st May, but it does not seem to deal with my question at all.

GRASS DRYING.

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the importance of the latest methods of grass drying to dairy

farmers; and whether, in view of the high cost of the implements required, he will consider giving facilities to farmers for borrowing money to buy dryers, loaders, mowers, and tractors for this new process?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE, (Mr. Elliot): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, I do not think it is necessary to propose to the House that the existing credit facilities available to agriculturists should be increased for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.

LAND DRAINAGE (RATING).

Mr. QUIBELL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to say when he proposes to bring before Parliament an amending Bill to the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in order to deal with the unfair incidence of agricultural drainage rating?

Mr. ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 18th May, of which I am sending him a- copy.

Mr. QUIBELL: Is the Minister aware of the gross injustice to large numbers of occupiers of small cottage property in various drainage areas where the rates are as high as 4s. 9d. in the pound on one-third of the annual value; and does not he think that the urgency of the matter is sufficient to justify something being done about it?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir; but it is not necessary to assume that it must be done by further legislation.

BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, ELY (WAGES).

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: asked the Minister of Agriculture the rates of wages now being paid to the various classes of employés in the Ely beet-sugar factory; and whether these are in accordance with the rates required by the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am having inquiries made into these matters, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the Minister aware that there is discrimination in the rates paid to men doing the same work;


and will he see that such discrimination is abolished now that the Act is in force?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will inquire into all the relevant circumstances.

Mr. PALING: Will this information be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. ELLIOT: Not unless another question is put down.

COAL MINES BILL.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to issue the White Paper in connection with the Mines Bill; and whether it is proposed to proceed with the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I should be glad if the hon. Member would be good enough to await the

—
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.



£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.
£000








(approx.).


Nominal Capital of Debt on 31st March.
7,413,309
7,433,943
7,643,794
7,822,298
7,800,437
7,796,056


Less—Outstanding issues to Exchange Equalisation Account.
—
—
150,000
350,000
350,000
350,000



7,413,309
7,433,943
7,493,794
7,472,298
7,450,437
7,446,056


Interest and Management Charge in year ended 31st March:








Internal Debt
264,262
279,983
262,786
212,010
211,434
211,316


External Debt
28,907
17,940
22,039
4,240
223
218

The increase in the nominal total due to the borrowing of £350,000,000 on Treasury Bills for the Exchange Equalisation Account is more than offset by corresponding assets. Other causes of increase in the nominal total have been the expenses of converting the 5 per cent. War Loan, loss on the foreign credits raised in 1931, and the issue of loans at a small discount in connection with conversion to a lower rate of interest, these items being partially offset by the application of Sinking Fund and other receipts to Debt redemption.

GOLD (EMBARGO).

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what object an embargo has, so far as is practicable, been placed upon forward

statement on Business which I propose to make at the end of questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE,

DEBT.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the National Debt of the United Kingdom for the year 1930–31 and each respective year up to the latest available date?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table which includes the figures asked for.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is not all this information contained in the Financial Statement, and in the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom?

Following is the table:

dealings in gold for non-commercial purposes and on speculative forward exchange transactions?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: There has been no alteration recently in the state of affairs which has prevailed for a considerable time past. The market is well aware that the authorities do not regard with favour non-commercial transactions of a type which increase the risk of currency manipulation and of speculative excesses. So far as I am aware, the market as a whole is in agreement with this attitude.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not very desirable that, in the interests of the position of the City of London, all markets should be kept as free as possible?

Mr. MORRISON: It is desirable that markets should be kept free, but this particular form of transaction is one which the market, I think on the whole, agrees ought to be to some extent restricted.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds bullion brokers have been requested to refrain in future from buying gold coins at a premium compared with their metallic value and from selling gold coins for hoarding purposes?

Mr. MORRISON: The request was made to reduce opportunities for hoarding. There is no hoarding of gold coins by people in this country, and it is not in the general interest that our market should offer facilities to enable foreigners to indulge in the practice.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Surely this request must have been made at the instance of the Bank of France. It does not affect us, but is it not another instance of restriction upon a free market and, before any further restrictions are imposed, will the Treasury give some information to this House, because it is getting rather serious?

Mr. MORRISON: I will only deny the hon. Member's assumption that this request was made at the instance of any foreign authority. It was not.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Exchange Equalisation Fund is being used to maintain the external value of the French franc at its present artificial rate; and, if so, why?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The answer is in the negative. The Exchange Equalisation Account has never been used for any other purpose than its proper business of minimising fluctuations in sterling.

Mr. BOOTHBY: If the French Government found it necessary in the future to devalue the franc, would we give them any necessary co-operation and assistance in our power?

Mr. MORRISON: The question seems to be somewhat hypothetical, but I feel that my right hon. Friend would not think it proper to make any statement regarding the currency affairs of another Power.

BANK OF ENGLAND (DEPOSITS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make with regard to the recent reduction in bank deposits with the Bank of England; and whether he can give an assurance that his policy of cheap money will be main-tained?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I assume that the hon. Member has in his mind the changes in the figures in some very recent weekly returns of the Bank of England. These changes are seasonal and temporary, and have no bearing on the question of our cheap money policy which has undergone no alteration. The hon. Member will see from the returns that if bankers' deposits happen to be somewhat lower than usual, public deposits are abnormally high. That is, of course, in preparation for 2nd June, when the Treasury have to pay out a sum of considerably more than £30,000,000 in the form of a half-yearly dividend on the War Loan.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can I take it that his right hon. Friend will bear in mind this whole question of cash at the Bank of England and these deposits, so that the opinion, which is widely held, as to the danger of the cheap money policy being reversed, will be definitely disposed of?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly; all relevant considerations will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend in this matter. I should like to get it clear that there is no alteration in our policy of cheap money.

GERMANY (BRITISH CREDITS).

Mr. DALTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to prevent the granting of new British credits to Germany outside the Standstill Agreement;
(2) whether he has satisfied himself, as the result of appropriate inquiries, that no new credits to Germany, outside the Standstill Agreement, have been made within the past 12 months by any British insurance company, acceptance house, or other financial institution?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend has no legal powers to prevent


the granting of new British credits to Germany outside the Standstill Agreement, or to demand information whether such credits have been granted in any particular instance. Moreover, he desires to see ordinary trade maintained and, if possible, increased under the existing Trade Agreement with Germany. As he has previously stated, he has no statutory powers of compelling information to be given to him, but from inquiries he has made he is satisfied that there is no foundation for the suggestion that German rearmament is being financed by credits given in the City of London. I may repeat what he has said before, that he would strongly deprecate the granting of British credit in any form for such a purpose.

Mr. DALTON: In view of the conflict between the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given and what is commonly said in City circles, if evidence should be given to the Treasury that particular financiers or insurance companies are in fact lending money to Germany under this provision, will the Treasury take steps to deal with the matter, and seek powers?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not in any way responsible for what may be commonly said in the City of London, but I would certainly answer the hon. Gentleman that, if he has any instances in mind on which this sort of rumour is based, and if he will furnish them to my right hon. Friend, the matter will be investigated.

Mr. ALBERY: Will not the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter depend on circumstances as they arise from time to time?

Mr. MORRISON: Every policy depends on that to some extent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Bank of England and the City can only use this credit because they have the backing of the British Government; and, if that is the case, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the power, and can exercise that power against giving credits?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TAX OFFICE STAFFS (SALARIES).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether,

among the employés of the tax offices of the country, there are any in receipt of less than £2 per week; and whether, in that case, he can give details?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The full-time staff of the Chief Inspector of Taxes in the Inland Revenue Department includes 426 persons who are in receipt of less than £2 per week. Of these, 32 are established male officers, who are all below the age of 18; 337 are established female officers, who are all below the age of 20. The remaining officers are employed on a temporary basis.

Mr. KELLY: Is any consideration being given to enhancing these rates?

Mr. MORRISON: I have indicated in my reply that the great bulk of the cases which I have mentioned are those of very junior appointments, and I think that that should satisfy the hon. Member.

PENSIONS.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are civil servants with 16 years' service who are without pension rights coming in the category of age-barred officers; and whether he will review the regulations so as to remove this disability from civil servants with long records of service?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My hon. Friend has presumably in mind the case of those clerks originally engaged in a temporary capacity who on the occasion of recent reviews were not admitted to the pensionable establishment on the ground that they could not complete by the age of 60 the 10 years' reckonable service required by Statute for the grant of a pension. In those cases where the service approaches 16 years, opportunities have been afforded at an earlier age of obtaining establishment through special competition, and I am unable to modify the rule in their favour.

PROMOTION.

Viscountess ASTOR: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how many men and women, respectively, have been promoted to the administrative class from other classes of the Civil Service during the last five years and to which Departments they have been appointed?

Mr. W. S MORRISON: Particulars of promotions to the rank of assistant


principal, that is, the junior rank of the administrative class, during the five years ended the 31st March, 1936, are contained in a table which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. No central record is kept of the promotions to the higher ranks of the administrative class, and I am not, therefore, in a position to supply my hon. Friend with information under this head.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the Financial Secretary assure the House that, although the Government will not give equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service, at least there will be equal opportunities of advancement for men and women?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, Sir; equal opportunities are given for promotion.

Following is the table:



Number.


Department.
Men.
Women


Air Ministry
2
—


Colonial and Dominions Offices
3
—


Customs and Excise Department
6
—


Board of Education
1
—


Home Office
2
—


India Office
2
—


Ministry of Labour
1
1


Post Office
2
—


Board of Trade
1
—


War Office
2
—



22
1

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HERRING INDUSTRY (LEVANT FAIR).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the results which have been achieved by the Herring Board in connection with their activities at the Levant Fair in Palestine?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that the board are not yet in a position to judge what results are likely to be achieved. The Fair is still in progress, and some time must elapse before the effects can be judged, especially as the herring export season has not yet commenced.

NORWEGIAN GRANITE (IMPORTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of crushed granite from Norway trebled between 1932 to 1935; what is the present import

duty; and, if for the, purposes of a trade agreement with Norway it is necessary for some section of British industry to make sacrifices, whether he will, in renewing the existing agreement with Norway, transfer the burden from the granite industry, where 20 per cent. are unemployed, to some other industry more fortunately situated?

Captain WALLACE: I am aware that there has been an increase in imports of granite chippings and crushed macadam from Norway, but such imports are small compared with total imports or with home production. The present import duty is 10 per cent. ad valorem. With regard to the last part of the question, the interests of the British granite industry will be considered, equally with those of other British industries, in any negotiations that may be opened for the revision of the Anglo-Norwegian Trade Agreement.

Mr. LYONS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider, in the interests of the Leicestershire industry, asking the Advisory Committee to make a recommendation on this matter?

Captain WALLACE: It is not for us to ask the committee; it is for the industry to ask them.

Mr. PETHERICK: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it clear that the Government intend, in these negotiations, to pay particular attention to those trades in which unemployment is highest?

Captain WALLACE: The Government are doing the best they can for all trades, taking them by and large.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to making more advantageous terms with the various countries in the trade agreements now coming up for renewal, he will, when possible, withdraw the privilege of the most-favoured-nation clause?

Captain WALLACE: If negotiations for the renewal of any trade agreement should break down, the possibility of withdrawal of most-favoured-nation privileges from the country concerned would fall to be considered, but His Majesty's Government regard this expedient as one to be held in reserve.


The prior denunciation of most-favoured-nation agreements would have an unsettling and detrimental effect on the flow of trade.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Is it not time that the Government abolished this relic of policies which have been abandoned in this country? Why should we retain a policy of this class when our entire fiscal policy has been altered?

Captain WALLACE: Because my right hon. Friend thinks that, on balance, we gain more from it than we should gain by abandoning it.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a statement showing the c.i.f. value of the imports from Argentina. in 1935, the value of the sterling credits accruing therefrom to Argentina, and the particulars of the disposition of those sterling credits under the provisions of the trade agreement?

Captain WALLACE: The declared value of the imports recorded as consigned from Argentina in 1935 was £43,995,000. Subject to certain adjustments which are under discussion, the amount of sterling allocated to the United Kingdom exchange quota during the year was £32,903,000. This amount was disposed as follows: Service of public debt, £6,107,000; payments for imports from United Kingdom. £18,579,000; and financial and miscellaneous services, £7,907,000. The balance has yet to be distributed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend quite satisfied that goods worth £43,000,000 when they reach this country were only worth £32,000,000 when they left the Argentine?

Captain WALLACE: It is only fair to say that insurance and freight represent a great part of the difference.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why the insurance and freight from the Argentine is greater than from any other country the same distance away?

Captain WALLACE: Not without notice.

SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION ABROAD).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of those ships built abroad within the last two years for British owners, and especially with the aid of subsidy; and whether he will give the circumstances in each case?

Captain WALLACE: There are no official statistics of orders executed abroad for the construction of ships for British owners, but with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving particulars of steamers and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over, which are shown in the returns of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been built abroad during the last two years, and subsequently registered in the United Kingdom. In no case has the building been assisted under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act. I am unable to state the circumstances in which each of these vessels was ordered, but I understand that, so far as the ships built in Germany are concerned, most of the orders were placed with the object of liquidating frozen credit balances in that country.

Captain PLUGGE: Is it not a fact that much of this construction that takes place in Germany is under a scheme for liquidating frozen debts? Cannot the Minister take steps to put an end to such a scheme?

Captain WALLACE: My answer says that this is the case.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: To what extent have these ships been built in exchange for exports of margarine from this country?

Captain WALLACE: I could not say without notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the statement in the question correct that there are British owners who are being subsidised for ships which they are having built abroad?

Captain WALLACE: If the hon. Member will look at the answer, he will see that I said that in no case has this building been assisted by subsidy.

Miss WARD: Will it be possible to obtain through the shipowners federated society the information which the House so urgently requires?

Steamers and motor ships of 100 tons gross and over shown in the returns of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been built abroad during the last two years and subsequently registered in the United Kingdom.


Month when registered.
Vessel.
Where and when built.
Gross Tonnage.


1935:








March
…
…
M/V. "Alexia"
Germany: 1935
…
8,016


May
…
…
M/V. "Auris"
Italy: 1935
…
8,030


July
…
…
"Else Rykens" (Fishing Vessel)
Germany: 1935
…
266


July
…
…
"Paul Rykens" (Fishing Vessel)
Germany: 1935
…
266


August
…
…
"Neil Mackay" (Fishing Vessel)
Germany: 1935
…
266


August
…
…
"Peter Hendriks" (Fishing Vessel).
Germany: 1935
…
266


August
…
…
M/V. "Eketian"
Germany: 1935
…
1,005


September
…
…
S/S. "Andino"
Germany: 1935
…
4,569


1936:








January
…
…
M/V. "Wheelsman"
Holland: 1936
…
287


February
…
…
S/S. "Ethiopian"
Germany: 1936
…
5,424


February
…
…
S/S. "Nigerian"
Germany: 1936
…
5,423


March
…
…
S/S. "Guinean"
Germany: 1936
…
5,205


April
…
…
S/S. "Leonian"
Germany: 1936
…
5,424


April
…
…
S/S. "Liberian"
Germany: 1936
…
5,205


April
…
…
M/V. "Narragansett"
Germany: 1936
…
10,389


April
…
…
M/V. "Seminole"
Germany: 1936
…
10,389

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

BLIND LANDINGS (LORENZ APPARATUS).

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any British air-lines are running a daily service to Sweden; and whether any of the machines are equipped with the Lorenz system for blind landings?

Sir P. SASSOON: British Airways, Limited, and British Continental Airways, Limited, are each running a daily service to Sweden, except on Sundays. I understand that two machines operated by the latter company are equipped with Lorenz apparatus, and that the new machines of which British Airways are in process of taking delivery have been similarly equipped.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the most up-to-date company receives no subsidy whatever, whereas its rival, the least up-to-date company, receives a large subsidy from the Government? Will he give an assurance that no further subsidy whatever will be paid to British Airways until it is at least as efficient as its non-subsidised rivals?

Captain WALLACE: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.

Following is the Table:

Sir P. SASSOON: In a few weeks British Airways will be as fully equipped from this point of view as Continental Airways.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what aerodromes in England are equipped with the Lorenz system for blind landings?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Heston aerodrome is the only one equipped with the Lorenz system at present.

Mr. PERKINS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost every principal aerodrome in Central Europe and Scandinavia is equipped with this apparatus; is it not time that we had more aerodromes equally equipped, and is it not advisable that members of the Air Council should go for a trip round Europe and see for themselves?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are experimenting with all forms of radio beacons.

AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether his attention has been called to


the fact that the British aircraft industry is receiving a severe set-back as a result of the inability of aircraft manufacturers to supply aircraft for commercial air-lines in Australia; and whether his plans for aeroplane construction in this country for defence purposes take into consideration the need for commercial development on the lines suggested?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend is aware of the recent decision of His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia to permit imports into Australia of aircraft of other than British construction, to which I assume my hon. and gallant Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question, full consideration is being, and will continue to be, given, to civil aviation requirements in all plans formulated for the production of aircraft in this country for defence purposes.

Captain PLUGGE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is desirable that no aircraft except of British manufacture should be used on Empire air routes?

Sir P. SASSOON: No aircraft except of British manufacture are at present being used on the Australian route.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (CO-OPERATION, EDUCATION AUTHORITIES).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many education authorities have refused to act as nominating authorities for boy entrants to the Royal Air Force; and whether he will publish a list of those local authorities who do consent to act as nominating authorities?

Sir P. SASSOON: Until quite recently the position was, I understand, that all education authorities were co-operating in this matter. It has, however, just been reported in the Press that the Barnsley Education Committee decided on Monday last to refuse to act in future as a nominating authority. As they appear to be the only exception, there seems to be no need to publish a list of education authorities consenting to act in this capacity.

Sir W. BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend approach the local authorities and ask the reason for their refusal?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it because the youngsters are fed on margarine?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Transport when the report of the Committee on Electricity Distribution will be published?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not yet in a position to say.

PALESTINE.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the land of Palestine is held by Jews; and what proportion, approximately, of this land was swamp and desert previous to Jewish occuption?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The High Commissioner for Palestine is being asked whether this information is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS (BOYS).

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of His Majesty's inspector of mines, at the annual meeting of the associates and students section of the North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineering, in Newcastle on Monday last, that accident rates for boys in mines in Northumberland and Durham are much higher than the rate for boys throughout the country as a whole; and what action does he propose to take with a view of dealing with this condition?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that the accident rate for boys in coal mines in Northumberland and Durham is higher than that for the country as a whole. A description of the measures which have been taken progressively by the introduction of safety classes and in other ways, to bring about a decrease in this rate, was given at the meeting referred to and will be found also in the report for the Northern Inspection Division for the year


1935, shortly to be published, and in the reports for previous years. It is hoped that these measures which are still being developed, and the gradual replacement of tub and pony haulage by conveyors and mechanical haulage will bring about a substantial reduction in the accident rate for boys.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that under the 1911 Act boys between 14 and 16 are not employed between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., and does it not follow that if the same regulation was made applicable in all cases to prevent boys working between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., it would have a great effect in reducing accidents?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hesitate to make a definite statement about that for the reason that the whole question of safety in mines is now under consideration by a Royal Commission, but everybody is only too aware how numerous these accidents are and want to do everything to try to prevent them.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiry as to how far the pernicious piecework system is responsible for the accident rate?

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of these accidents happened on the night shift?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will see if that information is available, certainly.

CANNEL COAL (OIL EXTRACTION).

Lieut.-Cononel MOORE: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the possibilities of extracting tar and motor spirit from cannel; and whether he will consider the desirability of financing research into this matter with a view to establishing such extraction on a commercial basis in this country?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The possibilities of extracting tar and motor spirit from cannel coal are well known. Certain investigations have recently been carried out in Scotland into the use of cannel coal in continuous vertical retorts at gas works. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have been associated with these investigations

and the results are made available in a report just presented to the Institution of Gas Engineers. While it is hoped that the investigations may lead to a wider use of cannel coal where sufficient supplies are available, the report points out that cannel coal, occurring as it does in an uncertain sporadic manner, cannot form a source of material upon which reliance, for any length of time, can be placed.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in the recent estimate as to what motor spirit could be developed in this kind of coal, it was estimated that something like 700,000,000 gallons might be employed if research were developed, and that 700,000,000 gallons represent three-quarters of the total imports of spirit into this country to-day?

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in his Department there is information of eight square miles of cannel coal in Ayrshire running from Kilmaurs to the Heads of Ayr?

LIBEL ACTIONS (PUBLICATIONS).

Mr. PARKER: asked the Attorney-General the number of successful libel actions against publishers of newspapers and other publications, respectively, brought in the last year in the courts of this country?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): No statistics are available giving the information for which the hon. Member asks. I am not satisfied that the figures, in so far as they could be ascertained, would be of sufficient interest to justify the considerable labour and expense involved.

Mr. PARKER: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet over legal decisions in libel actions, and will he take steps to see that legislation is introduced to clarify the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir, I am not aware of that

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is there any reason why these people should have any more rights than anyone else to insult people?

BUDGET PROPOSALS (INQUIRY TRIBUNAL'S REPORT).

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he has yet received the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the Budget leakages, and can he state when it will be in the hands of Members of the House?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir, I received the report from Mr. Justice Porter last night, and it was at once sent to the Government printer with a view to reproducing it in a White Paper. I hope to be able to take the formal steps to-morrow for laying it before the House rises, and I understand that it will be available for distribution on Tuesday.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it intended to make the evidence given before the Tribunal available to Members of the House?

Sir J. SIMON: As the House knows, the practice as to printing evidence taken in the course of such an inquiry varies with the circumstances, but I think that in the present case it will be thought desirable that a Blue Book containing the evidence should be prepared.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business of the House for the week that Parliament re-assembles after the Whitsuntide Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: Tuesday, 9th June, and until 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th June, Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
After 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, further progress will be made with the Air Navigation Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, and the Weights and Measures Bill.
Thursday, 11th June.—Supply; Committee (8th Allotted Day).
Friday, 12th June.—Consideration of draft Government of India and Burma Orders-in-Council relating to the Commencement and Transitory Provisions and Distribution of Revenues, and, if there is time, of draft Orders dealing with Electoral Corrupt Practices.
On any day, if there is time, other business may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does the Prime Minister consider it desirable to have a Debate on the report of the Tribunal Inquiry, and, if so, should it not be taken as early as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: I told the House that if the House desired, as seems to be the case, that there should be a discussion, we should certainly see that such a discussion took place. We are considering that, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with us through the usual channels.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister state for what purpose he is asking for the Eleven o'Clock Rule to be suspended to-night, and also say whether he has any statement to make with regard to the Coal Mines Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, and perhaps I may read the statement on the Coal Mines Bill first:
It will be for the convenience of the House if I make a statement as to the Government's intentions in regard to the Coal Mines Bill. The Government hold by the principles of the Bill, which form an integral part of the measures designed to improve the condition of the coal industry; they have, however, decided that it must be postponed until the autumn. When the House reassembles after Whitsuntide there will only be about eight Parliamentary weeks before the beginning of August. There is still a great deal of essential Government business to be got through before the Recess and from a careful examination of the time-table, it is clear that sufficient time is not now available to pass the Bill through all its stages in this House in time to allow reasonable discussion of the Measure in another place.
The Government will make use of the interval to redraft the Bill and this will make it unnecessary to present a White Paper as the new Bill will include the changes announced by the President of the Board of Trade when moving the Second Reading on Monday, 18th May.
The Government will ask the House to proceed with the new Bill after the Summer Recess.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister elucidate the first part of the statement


when he said "The Government hold by the principles of the Bill"? Does he mean the principles of the Bill as printed, or the principles of the Bill after it had been dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the principle of the Bill has been changed at all.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will regard the whole of this episode as a complete and undignified surrender to the capitalist interests involved?

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: In regard to the business for the week after next, does the Prime Minister expect to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the Tuesday and half of Wednesday, or only to make progress with it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, it is merely to make progress.

Mr. SHINWELL: In regard to the Coal Mines Bill, may I ask the Prime Minister what is proposed in connection with the further activities of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission? If the Bill is not to be introduced until the autumn, are we to understand that the commission is to be disbanded?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. That is a very proper question to ask. The matter will receive consideration. The commission is a statutory body, with functions under the Act of 1930 with regard to voluntary amalgamations, and that continues.

Mr. SHINWELL: But if, as was stated by the President of the Board of Trade in the Coal Mines Bill Debate, voluntary amalgamations cannot be achieved under the present activities of the commission, what purpose is there in maintaining that body?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that we take quite that view. We think that a great deal may be done by voluntary amalgamations.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: While the Cabinet are considering the new Coal Mines Bill, will they also take into account necessary amendments of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, so that there

may be appropriate protection of consumers under the coal selling schemes?

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Since the Coal Mines Bill has been withdrawn, after consultation with the coal-owners, do the Government intend before the new Bill is brought in, to consult the men affected?

The PRIME MINISTER: No doubt my hon. Friend an.1 all who are concerned with the production of the Bill will make every consultation that they think requisite.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to reply to my question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I assume that all these points will be reviewed.

Mr. TINKER: In regard to the business for 10th June, it is proposed to take the Finance Bill up to 7.30 p.m. and afterwards to take another Order, and later the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill. There has been a great deal of trouble over the latter Bill, and we do not want it to come on for discussion after 11 o'clock, otherwise there will be further trouble. We desire time to discuss it.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows that it is customary to put down two or three Bills, in the hope that you will have a successful evening, but that hope is not always realised. There is no intention to take that particular Bill at any hour of the night that would be generally inconvenient. We have put it down because if hon. Members come back in good humour after their holidays we may get that Bill with others.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister say how far it, is proposed to go to-night if we suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the first three Orders. The Lords Amendments to the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill are, I am scold, not controversial. We hope that the first Order may be finished by about 7.30, in which case we may be able to make good progress and, if we are fortunate enough, be able to complete the Committee stage of the Air Navigation Bill. But we do not propose to sit unduly late to-night.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing

Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 89.

Division No. 211.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Guy, J. C. M.
Petherick, M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Hannah, I. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Plugge, L. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Radford, E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bernays, R. H.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blindell, Sir J.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hopkinson, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bracken, B.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brass, Sir W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, T.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H, C. (Newbury)
Jackson, Sir H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Butler, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sandys. E. D.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cary, R. A.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Savery, Servington


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Latham, Sir P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leech, Dr. J, W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Leigh, Sir J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarke, F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lennox- Boyd, A. T. L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Levy, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lewis, O.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Liddall, W. S.
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Croft, Brig. -Gen. Sir H. Page
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cuiverwell, C. T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davison, Sir W. H.
McKie, J. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


De chair, S. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


De la Bère, R.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dorman-Smith. Major R. H.
Magnay, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Turton, R. H.


Duggan, H. J.
Mander, G. le M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, S. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maxwell, S. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Entwistle, C. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Findiay, Sir E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
White, H. Graham


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.
Williams, C, (Torquay)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morgan, R. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.



Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Parker, H. J. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hatt, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, G. D.
Price, M P


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Holland, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cassells, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. c.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W,


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
West wood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.



Second Resolution read a Second time.

BILLS RETORTED.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LANCASTER) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAMSEY AND SAINT IVES JOINT WATER DISTRIOT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

CORNWALL ELECTRIC Power BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

RIGKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).

Leave given to the Committee on Group J of Private Bills to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (No. 2) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bristol) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Stockton-on-Tees) Bill.
Buckhaven and Methil Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Manchester to provide trolley vehicle services within and without the said city; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Dover to execute street works to provide and work public service vehicles and to abandon their tramways and light railways; to make further provisions in regard to the finances of the borough; and for other purposes." [Dover Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Birmingham, to make further provision for the protection of their aerodrome and for other purposes."[Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords.]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PROTECTION OF DOGS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [4th MAY.]

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936.

Resolutions reported,

1. "That an additional number, not exceeding 2,059 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, be employed for the Sea Service, together with four for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions and at Royal Air Force Establishments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, beyond the number already provided in the Navy Estimates for the year."
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure not provided for in the Navy Estimates of the year."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. GEORGE HALL: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the course of the Debate? When the Supplementary Estimates were being considered in Committee, it was agreed that Vote A should be taken formally and that a general debate should take place upon the Supplementary Financial Estimate. Will a similar course commend itself to you and to the House now?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the House to decide. If such an arrangement s agreeable to the House, I have no objection. If the first Resolution is disposed of at once, we can have a general discussion on the supplementary sum in the second Resolution.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move, to leave out "£10,300,000," and to insert instead thereof "£10,299,900."
I would draw the attention of the House to what can be regarded as the alarming Supplementary Estimate that is now being considered. This Supplementary Estimate raises the naval expenditure for this year to the sum of £80,000,000, a sum larger than that of

any previous year, with the exception of the War years. This Estimate is double that of 1913–14. It can be said that now the nation is seeing the full effect of the termination of the Naval treaties, when there is nothing effective to take their place. Those who dislike those treaties have won their way through, and it can be said that the Government have completely surrendered to the demands of the fighting services in this matter. I can well remember the expressions of certain service Members in this House. It can also be said that after the Labour Government left, the London Naval Treaty had few, if any, friends. The then Prime Minister, the father of the agreement, very quickly abandoned his own child. We know that not only the late Prime Minister, now Lord President of the Council, but even the political heads of the Board of Admiralty, never really agreed with the London Naval Treaty. I recall some of the speeches made in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), writing in March of last year in, one of the newspapers, said that it was impossible for him to write temperately about that agreement. He could not, however, have been very dissatisfied with the agreement, because I also read a report of a speech which he delivered, not in this House or in this country, but in Malta about two weeks ago, in which he said that notwithstanding the operation of the London agreement "the British Navy was equal to any call which might be made upon it."

ADMIRAL of the FLEET Sir ROGER KEYES: In the Mediterranean.

Mr. HALL: There was no mention of the Mediterranean in that speech. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that the Fleet was equal to any call which might be made upon it. That was five years after the London Naval Treaty was entered into. The Prime Minister, judged by the speeches which he has made, does not minimise the importance of the London Naval Treaty or of the Washington Naval Treaty, for the right hon. Gentleman, speaking in December of last year at the opening of the Naval Conference said:
Nearly 14 years have elapsed since the limitation of naval armaments first became accomplished at Washington, and even though some of the countries here represented may take exception to this or that provision of the Washington and London


Naval Treaties, it cannot be denied that in those 14 years there has been none of the spirit of rivalry in construction between the parties to those Treaties, which tended to impair international relations in the days before the idea of limitation by international agreements was given good practical expression.
That was the view of the Prime Minister. Now that the agreements are terminated, we can see that we are at the end of the holiday and that the race in naval armaments has begun. The Navy programme is one of panic. This Supplementary Estimate accounts for only a portion of the expenditure on the armament policy of the Government as the price which the nation has to pay for the mishandling of foreign affairs during the past five years. I think it can rightly be said that the Government alone is not blameless in the matter. This large Estimate to-day is based upon a White Paper which was issued in March last by the Government, and, of course, it is also based upon various statements which have been made by Ministers since the issue of that White Paper. Clarity is not the strongest point in the White Paper or in the announcements concerning the new armament policy. The cart has been firmly placed before the horse. Notwithstanding the voting of such large sums of money as we are asked to vote, there has not been the clear examination of this problem of defence which wisdom and economy should demand. In the White Paper one paragraph says:
It is essential, therefore, that the relation of our own armed forces to those of other Powers should be maintained at a figure which should be high enough to enable us to exercise the influence and the authority in international affairs which are alike required for the defence of vital British interests and in the application of the policy of collective security.
I ask whether there has been any serious attempt to determine what British interests are likely to be threatened, or by whom, and whether any consideration has been given to the question of the extent to which a system of collective security could be relied on to protect those interests? What British responsibilities are in a collective system? To what extent do the Government propose to carry them out and adopt the policy of honouring the obligations of the Covenant of the League, as they said they would? Is there not

a cloud of fog about collective security, while at the same time we are sliding back to the pre-War policy of balance amongst the great Powers, for which we must have armaments enough to make us either a valuable ally or a dangerous foe?
The White Paper also says that the level of British armaments must be high enough to exercise authority in international affairs. Cannot every great Power use the same argument? Has not that a tendency to bring about the race in armaments which, as far as I understand it, public opinion in this country does not desire at all to begin? In the White Paper dealing with this Supplementary Estimate there is very little or nothing said about the increase of naval armaments in other countries. As a matter of fact the only reference in the White Paper is to Germany.
The naval agreement reached with the German Government on 18th June, 1935, is in a different category, in so much as it limits the expansion of the German Navy to a definite proportion of the strength of the British Navy. Nevertheless the new German Navy, even within this limitation and agreement, is given as one of the reasons why we should expand our Navy. It was an agreement which was entered into quite outside the Treaty of Versailles and gave rise to a good deal of criticism in both France and Italy. In the White Paper there is no reference to any increase in the naval armaments of France. or of. Italy, and the same can be said in regard to the Soviet of Russia. There is a reference to the expenditure on the army and navy in Japan, but no reference, to any increase as far as the United States of America are concerned. If the policy of the Government is founded. on a statement of this kind, without any reference to increases in the navies of other countries which are worth mentioning, then there is no justification for the panic in introducing this large Supplementary Estimate.
In the programme outlined in the Estimate it is proposed to lay down two battleships next year. It can, of course, be argued that this, is not any violation of the Washington or London Naval Agreements. But why this urgency? We have been informed that a committee is sitting under the chairmanship of the


Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to deal with the issue of the bomb versus the battleship. I am not an expert and cannot deal with such a problem, but I think it is fully intended by the Government, whatever may be the finding of the committee, to proceed with the construction of these battleships. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth thinks they are absolutely vital. As a matter of fact, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said that the reason why these battleships were being constructed was that there are eight battleships being constructed in Europe. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman had in mind the battleships under construction in France, Italy and Germany. The two battleships under construction in Italy were allowed under the Washington Conference, and could have been constructed during the years 1927–1929, if Italy so desired. The same thing is true of France, and the construction of battleships by Germany is under the agreement which was entered into between Germany and this country. I should like to know whether there is any authoritative information as to the laying down of battleships by the United States and Japan, who were signatories not only to the Washington Naval Treaty but to the London Naval Treaty. The explanation, as far as France is concerned, is that they were allowed under a, treaty of 14 years ago to build these battleships. While it is complained that our battleships are over age, the French still have the three battleships which were placed in commission in 1911, one in 1913 and another in 1914. Of the Italians' five battleships, one was commissioned in 1914. It was for these reasons that the Washington Conference allowed these two nations to build the battleships they are building at the present time.
There is one significant point in this matter, and that is that the decision of the Admiralty and the Government to construct these battleships was taken and announced by the Admiralty during the time when the London Naval Conference. was sitting. The White Paper of 4th March announced the construction of these battleships, whereas the London Naval Treaty was not announced until 25th March, nearly a month after the announcement of the proposed construction of these battleships. The same

thing can be said with regard to raising the number of cruisers from 50 to 70. During the sitting of the London Naval Conference the Admiralty thought fit to announce that our cruiser programme was to be increased from 50 to 70. That is a, frank departure from the standard set up by the Treaty of 1930, and it leads inevitably to a naval armaments race. The Government have never intended to continue the basis of the London Naval Treaty. It was determined to shake itself free of that agreement and build 70 cruisers instead of 50.

Viscountess ASTOR: indicated dissent.

Mr. HALL: The Noble Lady shakes her head. On this question she is in disagreement with her party, but her disagreement will not carry her into the Lobby to vote with us.

Viscountess ASTOR: Certainly not.

Mr. HALL: I notice that in the Supplementary Estimate provision is being made for the laying down of two cruisers of the "Southampton" class, of 9,000 tons. The recent naval agreement of 25th March this year limited the tonnage of cruisers to 8,000, but here we are some months after the agreement was entered into laying down cruisers of 1,000 tons more than is allowed by the agreement which the Government entered into with other Powers. It is, of course, true that the agreement has not been ratified, but in any case it does not indicate good faith on the part of the Government. It is not as though there were any inferiority on our part so far as cruiser strength is concerned—large cruisers, as compared with other nations. We have 19 cruisers of over 8,000 tons and eight under construction, with the three which it is proposed shall be laid down under the Supplementary Estimate, making a total of 27 cruisers of 9,000 tons or over. That is equal to the strength of the United States in vessels of that kind. They have 15 cruisers completed and 12 under construction. We have always been told that there is no naval race between ourselves and the United States. If there were a race with other naval Powers who were increasing their strength in large cruisers there would be something to be said for the action of the Admiralty, but Japan will have 14 cruisers, France seven, Italy seven, and Germany two.
There is no indication in the White Paper or in the speeches of Ministers as to what is likely to be the ultimate cost of the programme which we are commencing to lay down in this Supplementary Estimate. The burden will be the minimum during the first year and will be relatively slight. The bills will begin to accumulate in 1937–38 and following years. The astonishing thing is that the Government should have allowed the rumour to be broadcast of a programme costing £300,000,000, that is, if it is not true. In any case, this figure has gone unchallenged, and I think that the Government should at once tell us what is their full programme and what it is to cost, so that the House and the country will know. Some experts who claim to be competent to give an estimate of the cost indicate that a replacement programme alone would cost no less than —200,000,000. That is only for the replacement of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers which are becoming over-age, and it is only a minimum because the race is on. To replace the existing fleets of all naval countries would mean 720 ships at a cost of £800,000,000. I cannot imagine the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth agreeing to the programme which is outlined in the White Paper. As soon as they have achieved it, pressure will be brought on the Government again to extend and increase the programme. A suggestion has been made in the newspapers that the right hon. Member for Epping in the event of a vacancy in the Admiralty should become First Lord of the Admiralty.

Viscountess ASTOR: Never.

Mr. HALL: It is pleasing to see that the Noble Lady does not agree with the rumours which are broadcast and, apparently, she would not have him at any price.

Viscountess ASTOR: No; not at any price.

Mr. HALL: I think the right hon. Member for Epping would revel at the Admiralty in pre-war conditions when he was turning out battleships and cruisers almost like turning them out of a sausage machine. It is interesting to compare the actual cost of naval armaments in

this country at the present time with the four years when the right hon. Member for Epping was First Lord of the Admiralty, from 1910 to 1914. The cost of naval armaments at that time was £174,000,000, in four years. During the last four years, with this almost obsolete fleet, as it is described by some hon. Members opposite, the naval armaments, under agreements, have cost us £250,000,000, and here we are starting off on this race and incurring an expenditure which no one can really estimate.
I wonder whether a Service Member like the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth, who is sincerely interested in the Navy, would be satisfied with a Fleet of anything less than that which we had during pre-war days, taking world conditions as he sees them to-day, seeing that almost every nation is a potential enemy, and taking into consideration the international outlook and policy of the Government. In 1914 there was only one potential enemy. Will the hon. and gallant Member indicate whether there is more than one now? If it is confined to one, perhaps he will tell the House which. that one is. I think that under this system, and even in the White Paper, the Government are preparing, not for one, but for many, and I cannot conceive of Service Members being satisfied with anything less than the superiority which. this nation had in 1913–14, when the night hon. Member for Epping said we mast have a superiority of 60 per cent. in battleships and of over 100 per cent. in cruisers, with an unlimited number of small craft.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Member referred to Service Members. Personally, I shall be quite satisfied when this country has in its possession that number of cruising forces—battleships, destroyers, and submarines—which is necessary to give us reasonable defence throughout the world.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: With regard to the hon. Member's comparison with the figures for 1913, do they include non-effective services, because that makes a great difference?

Mr. HALL: Yes, they do. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), he, like, most Service Members, hides behind


the phrase "a number sufficient," but what, in his opinion, is a number sufficient?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I would only say that the experts at the Admiralty have laid it down for many years that, so far as cruisers are concerned, the number should be 70. In the White Paper we are now to have 70, of which 10 are over age, and therefore in accordance with the standard, we shall be 10 cruisers short of what are required.

Mr. HALL: There again the two Admirals do not agree with one another, because when I suggested that as soon as this agreement is made, pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government to increase it, the hon. and gallant Member shook his head. I would that the Noble Lord who is to reply for the Admiralty should deal with some questions which were put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and others during the course of the Debate upon the Supplementary Estimate in Committee. First of all, seeing that we are about to incur this very large expenditure, something should be done concerning costs. My right hon. Friend put a question to the Prime Minister and asked whether it was possible that a committee should be set up, on the lines, I think he meant, of the Esher Committee, so that this question of costs might be gone into very fully. Whatever might be the opinions of hon. and right hon. Members concerning the need for an increased Navy or increased armed forces, I think everyone would agree that there should be no profiteering, that there should be some control of costs, and that the public should be satisfied that they are getting value for their money.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence referred to the excellent costings department of the Admiralty, which was also referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not questioning the efficiency of that Department. They have figures dealing with the construction of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines in the Royal dockyards, but they have no figures concerning the construction of battleships, and I understand that these battleships will be put out to tender, but there are only a very limited number of ship constructors who can tender for them. I

have in mind, as a number of other hon. Members must have in mind, the evidence which was given before the commission which sat in America to inquire into the private manufacture of armaments. There is every indication that there is not only a national but an international ring operating in naval armaments, and I should think that the Government and the Admiralty would readily agree to the setting up of a committee of this kind, seeing that if the present Government continue in office, it is intended that we should incur such a huge cost as is proposed in this programme.
A question was raised concerning the scrapping of the five cruisers, and the Noble Lord and others also blamed the London Treaty of 1930 for the scrapping of those five cruisers in accordance with the terms of that Treaty. I would call attention to the attitude which those of us on this side took up when the First Lord of the Admiralty announced the change in the programme for the construction of small to large cruisers in 1933. In 1932 the First Lord said it was small cruisers that we wanted, and plenty of them. In 1933 he himself announced that, instead of building the requisite number of small cruisers to give the number allowed under the London Treaty, large cruisers would be built and the smaller cruisers sacrificed. The result to-day is that, instead of having the 50 cruisers allowed under the London Naval Treaty, we have sacrificed some of them owing to the fact that the present Board of Admiralty preferred to build larger cruisers.
My right hon. Friend put a question to the Noble Lord concerning the question of anti-aircraft guns and ships supplied with them, and the Noble Lord replied that it was not in the public interest that any information should be given upon this matter. Are the Admiralty still of that opinion? I think we might ask why it is that the newspapers of this country should have the information before the House has it. Almost within a few days of the Noble Lord making that statement in the House, that it was not in the public interest that this information should be given, I took up one of the morning papers and read that the cruiser "Cumberland" had recently undergone a very large refit, and almost minute details of the refit which had


taken place were given. In addition to other details, it stated:
Before the refit of the 'Cumberland' she contained four four-inch anti-aircraft guns; she now carries eight, in addition to anti-aircraft machine guns of various calibres.
Not only does that apply to the "Cumberland," but on 14th May there was a reference in the newspapers to the refit of the "Repulse," and it was stated:
When the ship leaves for the Mediterranean on the 8th June, she will carry four seaplanes, two in the hangars and another pair on deck. Hitherto no warship has carried more than two, and the main anti-aircraft armament of the 'Repulse' now comprises eight four-inch guns, including four of the latest models, twin-mounted on turrets, which give complete protection to the crews. In addition there are anti-aircraft machine-guns of various calibers.
Why could not the representative of the Board of Admiralty give to the House of Commons that which the Admiralty are prepared to give to the Press? I ask whether that is treating the House as the House should be treated?
There are some questions concerning Vote 10. In the Supplementary Estimate there are announcements of large expenditure contemplated for the widening of docks. We are laying down provision for the widening of the dock at Gibraltar, at a total cost of £400,000, and at Plymouth at a cost of £345,000. Is it contemplated that there will be an increase in the size of battleships? Is that what the Admiralty are preparing for? Very little notice is taken of agreements at the present time. It must be remembered that the battle-cruiser "Hood" is a battleship of from 41,000 to 42,000 tons, and up to the present time the docks at Gibraltar, Portsmouth, and Plymouth have been quite capable of dealing with the "Hood" and the other large battleships.
Then there is the question of entering into an expenditure of no less than £750,000 to set up a boys' training establishment at Rosyth. It strikes me as being very curious that, with the personnel of the Navy very much less than it was, and with no prospect of its going up to anything like what it was before the War—at least, I should think not—and with the amount of money which was spent on the reconstruction and adaptation of buildings during the War

period, we should have to incur this huge expenditure upon the setting-up of new establishments. I would that the Civil Lord, whose Department is charged with or is largely responsible for, this matter, should take note of the difficulties which exist as between department and department in the Admiralty. I had some when I was there, and I am satisfied that a good deal of this cost which is to be incurred in connection with the erection of new buildings could be saved if the Commander-in-Chief of the ports would himself see that there was this co-ordination which should exist as between them.
Again there is the question of Singapore. We are going to spend another £2,000,000 on Singapore, and the Noble Lord just referred to it when the matter was previously before the House. I think the House should be taken more into the confidence of the Admiralty on this question. What is it intended to do at Singapore which is going to require an expenditure of another £2,000,000, making a total cost at Singapore, on Naval Votes alone, of over £9,000,000? This Supplementary Estimate is just a part of the programme which presupposes a world foredoomed to war. It is a programme of statesmen who have thrown up the sponge, so far as trying to improve international relations is concerned. For five years the Government have allowed chance after chance to slide by, and now this arms policy is a tragic monument to their diplomatic failure. We insist that the nation should not be dragged by tired leaders into the policy of a race in armaments, which would lead this country to war, until a supreme effort has been made to stop the rot which has unfortunately set in.

4.46 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak now on some of the questons which have been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), and also to clear away some misapprehensions and misunderstandings which may have been left over from the previous Debate, leaving my hon. Friend the Civil it Lord to answer any questions that are asked this afternoon.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord suggests that he should reply to some of the


questions raised in the preceding Debate in Committee. I would not like that to become a precedent. I have sometimes to call Ministers and hon. Members to order for doing that very thing. On this occasion it might be useful to make an exception if the House does not object.

Lord STANLEY: I did not wish to transgress in that respect, but many of the points raised in the Committee were raised again by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I wish to reply in greater detail than on the last occasion. I am sure the hon. Member will understand if I leave the points which he raised with regard to Singapore and other matters to be dealt with by the Civil Lord. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdare on naval matters. However much he may criticise the administration of the present Board of Admiralty, I know very well the interest which he takes in the welfare of the Service. With some of his remarks I find myself in agreement. I certainly share with him regret at the necessity for this very considerable increase in the expenditure on the Navy Vote, and I also share with him regret that our incessant efforts—efforts which have been made by every Government since the War—to get an agreed limitation have not been more successful. Where I differ from the hon. Member is when he says that the reason for the increase in the Vote which I am presenting to-day is panic. That is a statement which is made by hon. Members freely up and down the country, but I think the general opinion of the country is that there is no panic on this occasion. Panic undoubtedly would have arisen later on if the hon. Member and his party had been in power, if they had not faced the realities of the situation, and if they had not decided to make good the deficiencies which have accrued and to adapt themselves to the altered conditions of the world.
I would like now to deal with one or two of the points specifically raised by the hon. Member. He referred first of all to the question of battleships. He asked what information we had regarding the building of battleships by other countries and why we were in such a hurry to lay down the keels of our new ones. I will repeat what I have frequently said before, that we are not

building against any single country, but it has been proved by the mere fact that Germany, France and Italy are all building battleships, that the day of the battleship is not over, and it is essential for us to start as early as possible in replacing our own very rapidly-aging battle Fleet.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does the last remark of the Noble Lord mean that it is intended to lay down the battleships whatever may be the result of the deliberations of the committee now sitting under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman?

Lord STANLEY: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what are the terms of reference of that committee, and my right hon. Friend said quite distinctly that there was no reasonable person who objected to the battleships themselves; it was only a question of whether adequate steps had been taken to ensure that they were built according to modern conditions. The hon. Member for Aberdare then went from battleships to cruisers. He asked why we were laying down this year two cruisers of 9,000 or 10,000 tons. We were allowed to build these cruisers to wind up the tonnage which was allowed to be replaced under the London Naval Treaty of 1930, and it is not to meet in any way the conditions which have been envisaged by the new Naval Treaty of this year. The reason for this increase in the tonnage has been explained on frequent occasions in this House. It has been the desire of the Board of Admiralty not to exceed the figure of 7,000 tons and for that reason we started building the "Leander" class of cruisers, and we hoped the other naval Powers would follow our example. That has not been the case. There has been considerable building of larger cruisers and we had to follow suit.
The hon. Member also referred to the question which was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) on the last occasion, concerning anti-aircraft guns. I am very sorry indeed if the House or hon. Members opposite should think that I have treated them with any lack of confidence or courtesy, but the question which was put to me was very much wider than the information which was given in the Press. I have not seen the article in question, but most certainly if


the right hon. Gentleman had asked me what were the arms of any particular ship which had finished her refit and of which the details were therefore well known. I would have given him the information. He asked me a very much wider question, as I understood it, as to the general policy of re-arming with these anti-aircraft guns. Therefore, on that occasion I was anxious not to give information to the House which we have not been prepared heretofore to make known to the other Powers. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under the recent naval agreement we laid particular stress on the people who signed the agreement getting advance information. They are to get four months' advance information as to the size of the armament of ships that are to be laid down. That advantage would obviously be nullified if full information were to be given to the world.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the Noble Lord going to give this advance information to other Powers before he gives it to the House?

Lord STANLEY: That has frequently been done before. It is given in confidence. One of the inducements to other countries to sign the treaty is that they will be given advance information that will not be given to the rest of the world. I would inform the right hon. Gentleman that the policy generally with regard to these anti-aircraft guns is that in every type of vessel, large and small, this vital feature is being pressed forward as fast as possible, but we are not anxious to give any more information at this moment and I very much hope that hon. Members will not press me.
The hon. Member also raised the question of reserves, with which I think I might deal now. He asked whether it would not be possible to reinstitute, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the immediate reserve started by the right hon. Gentleman in. 1912. This reserve was formed with the object of having an immediate reserve which could be called up without proclamation in preparation for an emergency. The men were highly trained owing to the longer period allowed for. It was composed of seamen, stokers and marines under 32 years of age who left the

Service before completing their time for pension. The men, who were enrolled for a period of live years, were required to perform 28 days training on board His Majesty's ships annually and to enter the Service if summoned by the Admiralty on a national emergency. They received retaining pay at the rate of Is. a day, or roughly £18 a year, and the maximum time for which they could be called up on any occasion was three months. As a matter of fact, that reserve was never called up, because in the emergency which started in 1914 very naturally all the reserves were required. After the War, when the whole question of the reorganisation of the reserves was investigated, this particular form of reserve was allowed to die out, partly because of the expense and partly because under existing conditions it did not provide the high standard of efficiency, particularly in the technical branches. Moreover the advantage of calling up the immediate reserve without proclamation can be more satisfactorily obtained at present by calling up pensioners under the age of 55 without having the disadvantage of the time-limit of three months. Naturally, if the question of reserves is again raised or investigated, the idea which lies behind this immediate reserve will most certainly be borne in mind.
A very important question which was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare was that of prices. I think he was on a rather bad wicket when he referred to the Esher Committee and asked why we did not set up a committee of that sort again. As a matter of fact, the Esher Committee was set up after the South African War to reorganise the War Office on the lines of the Admiralty, and later still the Air Ministry was also reorganised on the same lines. It appears, therefore, that the hon. Member would like a Committee to be set up to see whether the original organisation taken for its model was really the correct one. I think he did not want strictly a committee of exactly that sort. What he wants is a committee to make sure that undue profits will not be made out of the expenditure on armaments. I m very glad to have an opportunity of amplifying what I said on the last occasion and of doing away with any impression there may be that because the Admiralty are faced with a


large programme of work, we feel that our organisation is not capable of dealing with it.

Mr. G. HALL: Notwithstanding the fact that 20 or 30 years ago the War Office administration was modelled on the Admiralty, and that later on the same was done with the Air Ministry, is the Noble Lord aware that the May Committee in 1931, after a very exhaustive inquiry, held that a committee should be appointed to deal with the cost and design of battleships?

Lord STANLEY: That has nothing to do with the Esher Committee. It is only a small point and I do not think we need quarrel about the exact object for which the Committee is set up. What the hon. Member wants is a committee which will make sure that undue profits are not made out of the present programme of rearmament. What I want to stress is that although there is this considerable expansion, we feel that the Admiralty organisation is quite competent to deal with it, and we also believe that from many points of view the Admiralty programme of works presents the smallest number of new problems and the least difficulty. As the House knows, one of the main items of expenditure is new construction, and here we have the advantage of our own dockyards and the listed shipbuilding firms, and we are able to check their prices both by competition and in other ways. We have id existence a satisfactory scheme for fixing prices and allocating orders. There will be other problems arising, such as the suppply of skilled workers, but those are questions which would come under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and will not call for any change in the Admiralty organisation. It is the same in the Works Department of the Civil Engineer-in-Chief. That Department will need increasing and strengthening but I see no reason why we should in any way alter the system.

Mr. HALL: I have had experience of dealing with this question of buildings, particularly in outlying districts, and I discovered a considerable amount of overlapping, and of reluctance on the part of the heads of various departments to disclose accommodation which was not being used and which could be used for other purposes. There is a reluctance to give up accommodation and I think something ought to be done in that respect.

Lord STANLEY: I do not think we are faced with the same difficulty, but I will leave that matter to be dealt with by the Civil Lord who will clear up any doubt which exists in regard to it. There is one thing more which I wish to say on the question of prices, and that is in regard to armament supplies, equipment and stores generally. The Admiralty recognise that there are many cases in which plain straightforward contracts will not be possible, particularly in the lines in which it is desirable to develop increased sources of supply. We have had considerable practice in dealing with these cases, as new equipment is constantly being devised for which contractors could not fairly be asked to quote prices without prior experience. Our professional accountancy department and technical costing department, which although located in the Air Ministry also work for the Admiralty, have an important part in these arrangements. Our object is to keep these arrangements flexible and to adapt them to the particular circumstances of each case.
Although we have this experience on which to build, it has been recognised from the first that some special machinery is required in present circumstances, both to give manufacturers whose assistance we require the greatest possible confidence that they will receive fair treatment from the Admiralty, and also to safeguard the Admiralty as much as possible from the risk of paying unfair prices. Following, therefore, the precedent of the Air Ministry the Admiralty have set up a committee which will act as an advisory body to the board and the Director of Contracts and which will be consulted on questions relating to the prices to be paid to contractors for armaments—more particularly those which cannot be procured in sufficient quantities except by special measures to increase the output to which the phrase "the creation of a shadow armament industry" has been applied. They will also be consulted on cases in which there is evidence of combinations or associations being formed by contractors to secure prices which could give or are suspected to give the manufacturers of any equipment or stores an excessive profit. The gentlemen who have with great public spirit consented to serve on that committee are Sir Malcolm Robertson (chairman), Sir Nicholas Waterhouse, Mr. W. Fraser, and


Sir Norman Leslie. I am sure the House will share with the Admiralty a deep sense of gratitude to these gentlemen for undertaking this extremely important work.
There is one more point which was briefly touched upon by the hon. Member for Aberdare and that is with regard to the five "C" class cruisers. I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. It is not for me to blame or to defend the London Naval Treaty of 1930. My duty is to explain and defend the action which the Admiralty feel it is right for them to take under the terms of the Treaty and as misapprehension appears to have arisen as to the exact bearing of our obligations in connection with cruiser tonnage under this Treaty, I will with the permission of the House briefly restate the facts. Under Part III of the Treaty the United States, Japan and ourselves agreed that our complete cruiser tonnage on 31st December this year should not exceed a given total divided into two sub-categories (a) those with guns above 6.1 inches and (b) those with guns not exceeding 6.1 inches. There was no definite obligation as to the actual tonnage on any given date in the intervening years provided excess tonnage was disposed of by the end of the Treaty term. If no further scrapping were to take place, we should possess 20,000 tons over our given agreed figure.
The question then arose, which ships should be scrapped in order to effect the necessary reduction? After full consideration it was decided to keep the three cruisers of the "Hawkins" class but as they would be in excess of the number allowed under sub-category (a) it was further decided to convert them into sub-category (b) by replacing their 7.5 inch guns by guns not exceeding 6.1 inches and scrapping in their place the necessary tonnage of older and smaller ships that is to say the five cruisers of the "C" class— "Caledon," "Calpvso," "Caradoc," "Ceres" and "Cardiff"—all 19 years old. The view was expressed in the course of the previous Debate that it was a waste of money to scrap these ships when at the same time we had announced the intention of increasing our cruiser strength. That point of view is easy to understand, and

the Admiralty would certainly be able to make use of these ships if we were to retain them, although in view of their age it would be easy to over-estimate their value. On the other hand, we are pledged by the Treaty to reduce to the agreed tonnage by the end of this year and it is impossible to over-estimate the value of keeping the letter and the spirit of any agreement to which we put our name.
The question of making use of the escalator clause of the London Naval Treaty was raised frequently during the Debate but here considerable difficulties exist. Actually, this clause is far more restricted than the corresponding clauses of the Washington Treaty and the recent Naval Treaty of 1936. Moreover, no provision was made in the Treaty of 1930, even to allow of release from its restrictions in the event of a country going to war nor is there any general provision to allow release on account of "a change of circumstances," both of which provisions appear in the other Treaties. Here I would like to make it plain that the position under the 1930 Treaty as regards cruisers and the position as regards destroyers are in no way comparable. With respect to destroyers, we made a definite reservation in the White Paper accompanying the Treaty, that we should have to increase our destroyer tonnage if existing submarine programmes were not reduced, and we are now approaching our co-signatories on those lines. With regard to ships generally, with the exception of destroyers, for which we made this special reservation, Article 21 reads as follows:
If, during the term of the present Treaty, the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Party in respect of vessels of war limited by Part III of the present Treaty are in the opinion of that party materially affected by new construction of any Power other than those who have joined in Part II of this Treaty, that High Contracting Party will notify the other parties to Part III as to the increase required to be made in its own tonnages within one or more of the categories of such vessels of war, specifying particularly the proposed increase and the reasons therefor, and shall be entitled to make such increase. Thereupon the other parties to Part III of this Treaty shall be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified; and the said other parties shall promptly advise with each other through diplomatic channels as to the situation thus presented.


That is the relevant article of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, and it will be seen that the conditions to be fulfilled in invoking this clause are that—
the requirements of our national security must be affected by new construction by Powers not parties to Part III of the Treaty; and that the reasons for the increase must be explained to the other High Contracting Parties.
I would prefer in this connection not to refer by name to any particular Power or Powers or to quote individual statistics but I can assure the House that it is the considered opinion of the Government that the new construction of cruisers undertaken or announced by non-contracting Powers, in programmes subsequent to 1930 and not known at the time of the signing of the treaty, have not been of a character or scope to affect the requirements of our national security.

Mr. ALEXANDER: How does the Noble Lord square that statement with the speech of the Prime Minister on 11th March, 1935, in the Debate on the first defence White Paper, in which he said that a large number of submarines and light cruisers had been built by Powers not parties to the London Treaty of 1930, of a tonnage to enable us, if we so desired, to invoke the article of that treaty which permitted us to increase our tonnage?

Lord STANLEY: That referred to destroyers.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Light cruisers.

Lord STANLEY: The fact that these light cruisers, which were at one time known as destroyers, were contemplated, was perfectly well known at the time of the signing of the London Naval Treaty.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that a Power has constructed a very large number of so-called destroyer leaders, which, if she had signed the treaty, would be classified as cruisers; and is it not the case that if we had built those ships they would have had to come under our cruiser tonnage? Surely that is a clear case of a Power which had not signed the London Treaty constructing ships which are classified as cruisers in that treaty. Would it not therefore justify us in putting the escalator clause into operation as far as cruisers are concerned?

Lord STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own case first and my hon. and gallant Friend can make his own afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember that a question was put to the Prime Minister on this very point on 13th May, in reply to which he said:
The statement referred to was part of a speech on the general question of defence, and was not intended to be an exhaustive or final declaration of our position in regard to the London Naval Treaty limits. In particular, the use of the words 'light cruisers' may have caused some misapprehension. The reference was to a type of vessels which are classified by the French as destroyer leaders, and up to 18 months ago were generally referred to as such, but which are now classified as 'cruisers' in the United Kingdom publication entitled 'Fleets.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1936; col. 375, Vol. 312.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does not that make the case all the stronger? Here are vessels previously classified as destroyers. Now they are classified as cruisers under the definition of the London Treaty. Does not that make the case all the stronger for invoking the escalator clause in respect of them?

Lord STANLEY: No, I do not agree with that. Whether they were classified as destroyers or are classified now as cruisers their existence was perfectly well known to the right hon. Gentleman and to his advisers when the London Naval Treaty of 1930 was signed. To go back to my argument. I have said that the building subsequent to this Treaty has not been of a character to affect the requirements of our national security. The cruisers in question which would affect the issue consist of 12 vessels constructed over a period of five years, of which only three have been completed and two are beginning their preliminary trials. I need hardly say how important it is that recourse to an escalator clause should only be had when the high contracting party invoking the clause is satisfied, not only that his case is sound, but that his need to invoke the clause is imperious. Otherwise, we should be setting an example which would not only put an end to such prospects as there are of continuing the limitations of armament by international agreement, but would aim a severe blow at the sanctity of international obligations generally.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are anxious to get this straight. This is the Report


stage and we shall not get another opportunity. If it is the case, as the Noble Lord has put it, that none of the Powers outside the high contracting parties in 1930 have really built in such a way as to justify our using the escalator clause, what is the reason for the enlarged programme of the Government?

Lord STANLEY: That has been explained time and time again, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well. He agreed to a limitation of tonnage allowing us only 50 cruisers, and we have found by experience that the tonnage to which he reduced us is not sufficient to enable us to carry out our responsibilities.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) said in 1930:
You will find a steady decline in naval expenditure and a steady rise in almost every other country, and you begin to ask whether it is a sound policy.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Where is the rest of the speech?

Viscountess ASTOR: That is enough!

Lord STANLEY: Perhaps we shall be able to hear the rest of the speech later. So much for what I may call the legal side of the question, that is, whether we have a legal right to invoke the escalator clause in this particular case. A different suggestion was also made in the Debate on the 4th May. It was suggested that the retention of these five cruisers could easily have been made a matter for arrangement between the United States and ourselves during the recent London Naval Conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough even referred to the 1936 Treaty as one which revised the 1930 Treaty.
Let me first deal with the point that this matter should have been discussed at the recent Naval Conference. This conference was summoned under the relevant provisions of the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Article 23 of the latter treaty provided that the high contracting parties should meet in conference in 1935 "to frame a new treaty to replace and to carry out the purposes of the present treaty." Proposals for the amendment of the old treaty would, therefore, have been outside the scope of this conference and, if

made, would certainly have been rejected by other Powers. Furthermore, the Naval Treaty of 1936 which emerged from this conference is not a revise of the 1930 treaty. The purpose of the recent conference was in fact not to revise the former treaty, which is due in any event to expire at the end of the year, but to determine what degree of naval limitation will be possible when the existing naval treaties come to an end. But it may be eontended that the matter might have been discussed, one might say unofficially. with the foreign delegates outside the conference itself.
Here I must remind the House, in the first place, that the Japanese delegates withdrew from the conference at an early stage before any matters other than those of a general character had been discussed, so that, even had such a course been considered desirable, no suitable opportunity would have presented itself. Even if there had been this opportunity, we must obviously have been prepared in advance to agree that the other high contracting parties should be permitted to retain the cruiser tonnage which they are at present under an obligation to scrap before the 31st December next. As a, matter of fact America has no excess tonnage and would hardly he expected to make a concession from which she got no compensating advantage, while under the same arrangement Japan would be entitled to retain cruisers both more numerous and more serviceable than ourselves; and it is the definite view of the Admiralty that, in the circumstances, the naval interests of this country would be better served by not asking the other parties to enter into an arrangement of this description. To alter our relative naval position in certain respects for the worse would surely be a high price to pay for the retention of these five ships, whose course is almost run.
To sum up, the conclusions of the Government in the matter may be stated. as follows: We should not be justified in escalating in cruisers, within the meaning and intention of Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty, 1930, and, in the interests of the strict observance of Treaty obligations, we believe that the escalator clause should not be used. As regards the alternative suggestion that we should make an arrangement with the other contracting parties independently of the escalator clause, we believe this in the


first place to be impracticable, because the assent of both of the parties to any such proposal is most- unlikely, as it would act unequally; but, even if it were practicable on the basis of a general retention by high contracting parties of tonnage still due to be scrapped under the Treaty, we are convinced that such an arrangement would be contrary to our naval interests. We naturally assume that it is the intention of the other high contracting parties to scrap their surplus cruiser tonnage in strict accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, and, relying on this, His Majesty's Government are prepared to fulfil their side of the contract.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood from Mr. Speaker's Ruling that he deprecated the answering on the Report stage of specific questions that had been raised on the Committee stage. No doubt that is our rule and practice. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I think my Noble Friend, in making a statement which covered what I may call the principal naval topics which are being discussed during this Session, has taken a course which greatly meets the convenience of the House. One of the complaints made in regard to some of the combatant services is that questions that are asked are not answered, and I must say that my Noble Friend has endeavoured to make a specific answer to-day to almost every point that has been current in our naval Debates this year. Whether the answer is satisfactory or not is another question, but that he has endeavoured fairly to meet the issues which have been presented is, I think, common ground in all parts of the House.
I have only one or two minor matters to touch on, and one matter of substance. I am bound to say that I see certain objections to foreign countries being given elaborate, full details of forthcoming British naval construction when those details are for a very long time withheld from the House of Commons representing the taxpayers of the country. It may be that, as a matter of diplomacy, from time to time some indication is given to naval attachés of forthcoming Admiralty programmes or the programmes of other Powers, but definitely to base ourselves upon a system of confiding to other countries the figures of

our future ships and withholding them from the people of this country, is not one which should be pressed very far.

Lord STANLEY: I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates the great advantage we get from having this information from other countries also.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In my view, the Admiralty should aim at giving the House the greatest amount of information possible about their ships. All they have done in the past is to publish very full figures, but when, for purposes of secrecy and in the national interest, it has not been desirable to give those figures, the House has been willing to allow the matter to lie, as it were, in mystery. But from the moment you tell a foreign Power about our own construction, there is not the slightest reason why you should not give similar information to your own people. It is not suggested that you should give to your own people information confidentially imparted to you by other Powers. That is for them to settle with their own people, but it seems to me that in principle what is known abroad ought to be known at home. I remember saying in the Autumn what a very unsatisfactory situation the Fleet was in. It was moved to the Mediterranean and strongly reinforced, and English newspapers were asked not to comment on it. They immediately refrained from comment, but every foreign paper printed every movement, and everybody abroad knew about it from day to day. It is objectionable that information should be withheld, not for the purpose of preventing foreigners getting hold of it, but of preventing your own people getting hold of it.

Lord STANLEY: Information is given only in regard to new construction.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was only touching on this point because I thought it important. Then my Noble Friend dealt with the question of the reinstatement of the immediate reserve, which I raised, and he said he did not want it as it was too expensive to get the 3,000 men available at any moment and to train them for 28 days a year. It would be a most valuable method of keeping them in touch with the sea services and would cost £18 a head, or a total of £54,000. When we are thinking of Estimates of over £60,000,000, it does not seem to me


to be such a crushing expenditure that, if the circumstances were otherwise satisfactory, it should deter you from adding this to your facilities. If the Admiralty consider that they have better ways of achieving the results and do not wish to have this facility, and cannot afford the £50,000 which would give them this facility and convenience, obviously there is no good pressing it. You should never force little dogs to eat mutton, and I will not press it on my Noble Friend.
There is one other minor question. I was going to ask the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is able to give us any further information about the progress of the inquiry he is holding into the transference of the Fleet Air Arm to the Admirality, or about the resisting-power of battleships to attack by modern explosives. I should doubt very much whether he will be anxious to give us information, because I do not suppose his inquiries are complete.

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): I may say that, so far as the Fleet Air Arm inquiry is concerned, I have now a great deal of the information before me. I have asked for some more information, and my right hon. Friend will understand that I must inform myself of the facts on particular points at which friction is caused. I am now in possession of a great deal of information, and with such opportunities as I have, having regard to my commitments in this House, I am considering it. With regard to the other inquiry, we have made substantial progress. We have now heard the evidence of a number of gentlemen well qualified to inform us as to the question under consideration. We have arranged a meeting immediately after Whitsuntide, and I think I may say that I see the end of the inquiry well in sight.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and we shall all await with great interest the result of his decision about the Fleet Air Arm. With regard to the question of whether battleships can be built or not, that has been settled, whatever the result of his inquiry, by the decision of the Admiralty to build them, and, that being so, I hope in this time of pressure

and strain that he will not unduly burden himself by performing acts of civility to a committee which is certainly dead before it is born.
Now I come to the most serious matter whit happears to me to arise out of the discussion of naval affairs this year, and that is the intention of the Admiralty to scrap these five light cruisers. Let the House face the facts. At a time when it is universally agreed that we ought to increase our cruiser tonnage, when the Admiralty are proposing to raise the number of cruisers from 50 to 70, when it is well known how deep is their anxiety on this matter, at this very time we have to pole-axe five quite servicable cruisers. At a time when we have to make the most onerous demands upon the taxpayer we have to take his money out to sea and sink it. It is a very unappetising and melancholy conclusion to offer the British taxpayer—not the sort of finale to policy which one would hope the British Government would be able to produce. It is not the sort of thing to make people willing to meet the renewed demands which have now to be made continuously upon them, that they should see that good money has to be thrown away in this fashion. It is certainly not the sort of event that the manager of a great private business would announce with gusto in his annual report. It certainly is not a step which can in any way, however it might be explained, be associated either with foresight or with good and happy arrangements.
But, we are told, it is all because of the treaty. The sanctity of treaties! The word of Britain, however great the sacrifice, must be redeemed. Absolute fidelity to the letter and the spirit of the treaty. There, and there alone, we take our stand. No one is going to quarrel with my Noble Friend and attack him when he occupies so majestic and unassailable a position as that. We are absolutely in accord on that question. But let us look at this treaty. I have always been a severe critic of this London treaty of 1930. In those days, when I was the present Prime Minister's guardian angel in naval affairs, endeavoring to keep his steps from falling into evil courses or pitfalls of any kind, I persuaded him to lead the Conservative party through the Lobbies against that treaty, and I have always regarded it as deeply detrimental to the interests of the Royal Navy.
However, I am not prepared to blame the present unfortunate situation upon the treaty. I do not think it is right to do so. The Government have done less than justice, it appears to me, to this treaty. I never expected that I should find myself defending the Lord President of the Council on a naval matter against his Conservative colleagues. I think it only fair to say that this treaty does not bear the interpretation which has been placed upon it in this respect. It is unfair to say, as was said in the late Debate from the Government Benches, that these five cruisers have to be sunk just because of the improvident Socialist treaty of 1930. I have been reading the treaty again, and have taken such advice as I can upon it, and I say without hesitation that nothing in the treaty obliges you to sink these cruisers unless you want to. My Noble Friend has read Article 21, a very remarkable article, which deals with the escalator clause. Let me emphasise some of the points in Article 21. I will not read it again. First, if in your opinion—if in the opinion of the British Government or any of the other contracting Governments your security is affected by the new construction of non-Treaty Powers, you do not have to obtain the consent or the agreement of the other Powers to the treaty; you have only to notify them. You are the sole judges. This is very important.
When this treaty was being put through many people said, "If we find at the end of the six-year period the state of the world is dark and new construction is growing up, how are we to rid ourselves of these new dangers?" and we were told, "There is the escalator clause." "But," we said, "supposing other people do not agree?" They said, "Oh, that has been provided for. You have only to notify. If you think your interests are affected by the change in the naval situation and by the growth of new construction abroad, you only have to notify. It does not depend upon the consent, agreement, or even the subsequent approval, of any of these other Powers."
The second point is this: If this external new construction affects our position there is no question of the escalator clause being limited—as I imagine from what I have heard in this Debate was the impression on the Government benches —to any particular category for meeting

a new development in foreign construction. For instance, the building of submarines is not necessarily the argument for freeing us to build more submarines. The answer to the submarine is not another submarine but a destroyer. In the same way, the answer to a destroyer is not necessarily another destroyer; it is very likely a light cruiser squadron. As the Noble Lord knows so well, in the orthodox scheme of great naval battles when the flotillas of the enemy attack the battle fleet, the light cruiser squadron advances and, with their superior gun-power and high, stable gun-platforms, they are capable of destroying the flotilla attack. That is the whole theory. Therefore, there was never any idea that it should be limited category by category and one can see, by reading the answers to questions in this House, that that has been in the mind of the Government all through and in the mind of the Prime Minister and of the Noble Lord—that you had a case on destroyers but you had no case on cruisers. The French destroyer programme includes 32 2,500-ton vessels which, as they are taking the water, do constitute a very important fact in the naval situation.
Then there is the position which has grown up in the Mediterranean, true a strategic position but one which throws a different emphasis upon the character of the new construction. Then there is the arrival of German naval power, growing from year to year. To say that none of those facts has made any difference, and that the Admiralty representative can get up and say, "We are perfectly satisfied with the situation" is an absurdity, especially when it is contrasted with demands for the greatest naval expansion that this country has seen since the War and with the greatest Estimates that it has ever seen in time of peace. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot say "All is going on perfectly well; we are entirely satisfied; none of the external circumstances cause us the least anxiety; everything is proceeding according to plan; and therefore we do not need to invoke the escalator clause, we do not need to use our rights under the escalator clause," and then the next clay, or almost on the same day, come forward and ask for a continuation, year after year, as it must be, of the most formidable and tremendous Navy Estimates which we have ever yet faced in


times of peace. No, Sir; the Admiralty stulfify themselves and stultify the case of Members supporting them who will be defending this naval expenditure all over the country when these very reassuring statements are made in one small connection.

Lord STANLEY: rose—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I—

Lord STANLEY: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman every time.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am going to give way. I will certainly give way to the Noble Lord if he will let me finish my sentence. I was saying when these statements are made on the one hand and an entirely different aspect of affairs is put forward on the major programme.

Lord STANLEY: I only want to say that at no period in my speech did I express any measure of complacency or satisfaction. I only tried to argue that according to the best of our belief we are not entitled to invoke the escalator clause, and gave the reasons why the other methods of approaching our cosignatories were not wise to employ in this matter. There is no question of saying I was satisfied with the situation as it exists, nor of complacency.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My Noble Friend did not use the word, and I did not use the word, "complacency."

Lord STANLEY: I think it was inferred that I expressed great satisfaction and contentment with the present situation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am going to argue this matter, with great respect to the Noble Lord, because I do not think it is satisfactory where it stands. I did not use the word "complacency." The case is that those five serviceable ships are to be sunk when you have a clause in the Treaty which would enable you to avoid sinking them—when you could notify foreign Powers, and when you would not have to sink them to avoid breaking the Treaty. The reason, the honourable reason, which you allege for not using this power which you have is that nothing has occurred which in your opinion requires this emergency use of the escalator clause. I am content with that statement of the case. I am

not charging my Noble Friend with complacency. I know perfectly well that he would be delighted to keep those five cruisers. I am sorry to say that he and his advisers and the Admiralty have been led into this position on the subject. I say the Treaty foresaw that there was no limitation by categories. It is quite clear that if you find yourselves affected by naval developments and new construction by non-Treaty Powers in any part of the world you are entitled to preserve your own building or, if necessary, to make new construction. Those are the facts of the Treaty. I do not think they are at all denied. The only thing is that the Admiralty have chosen to say that, in their opinion, nothing has occurred to make them use the powers; but they have the powers—there is no dispute at all about that. I think that is a very serious matter.
The next question is whether the case is good upon its merits. There is no dispute about this, because the Prime Minister said on 11th March last year that it was clear that there was ample tonnage to enable us to invoke the escalator clause. It was explained that that referred only to the escalator clause in respect of destroyers, but what has that to do with it? There are no watertight compartments in this matter. If there was enough tonnage to enable us to invoke the escalator clause in respect of destroyers and we chose to invoke it in respect of cruisers, we are absolutely entitled under the Treaty to do so. Instead of building, say, 20 destroyers, we build, say, three cruisers. It is for us to decide absolutely. Something has happened in the interval I do not know what, which has tended to alter the position of the Government since the declaration which the Prime Minister made on 11th March last year. It therefore seems that a misapprehension has arisen.
I repeat that there is nothing whatever in the Treaty argument. What is required of us is clear, the facts are clear, the merit is clear and the intentions are clear. In the comic g years of danger in Europe, when we have not only to consider the North Sea but the Mediterranean in the most pointed fashion, and when the convoy of our food supplies may be a most grave pre-occupation, can any one suppose that it is wise or prudent


to take five serviceable cruisers out to sea and sink them, without any Treaty obligation? Apart from the statements which have been made by the Government, the facts of the world in no way warrant us in making this sacrifice. There is, however, I admit fairly to the House, another aspect of this matter. When my Noble Friend first opened this case upon another occasion, he based himself entirely upon the Treaty: the Treaty compels. Now we see another line of argument being brought forward, which is that if we do not sink or scrap the five cruisers, Japan will not sink five of her cruisers—or seven of her cruisers. That is how I understand the argument. If that is an afterthought, it must be admitted to be a very substantial afterthought.

Lord STANLEY: If there is any fault on that score it must be laid to my door. I did not use all the arguments that could have been used. On the part of the Admiralty it is not an afterthought at all. It is one of the main reasons. If there is any misunderstanding on that point it is at my expense.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am delighted to answer a question of my Noble Friend, but it is unusual for a private Member to be asked to do so.

Viscountess ASTOR: My right hon. Friend talks about using the escalator clause. Does he realise that if the Government do that, they are faced with an entirely different and new naval situation? They can do what is necessary under their different agreements, but the minute they begin the escalator clause we get a new competition in armaments. Is that what my right hon. Friend wants?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be no doubt a very searching, and in many ways very disconcerting, question, but for the fact that the Government are already using that clause. I really must warn my Noble Friend to be a, little careful. Representing a dockyard constituency, she must follow these naval matters a little more closely.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am.

Mr. CHURCHILL: She has not even heard it said that we are invoking the escalator clause in respect of destroyers and keeping 40,000 tons beyond what would be—[Interruption.] The Noble Lady says: "By agreement." That is not so. It may be that others will agree, but we are acting on our right, and that is the whole point. If others agree and think it reasonable, all the better, but we are acting on our right. I hope I have given the Noble Lady a satisfactory answer.
What I want to say about these Japanese cruisers is that a question is raised which is very difficult to decide, and it is this: Is it more dangerous for Japan to have five more cruisers in the Far East in the next two years than it is for us to have five fewer cruisers on our own trade routes, in the Mediterranean and in the narrow seas? That is a question which I am certainly not going to attempt to decide. I take it that the Admiralty, having weighed it all, have considered that they would rather be without the five vessels themselves than that Japan should retain those five cruisers—or seven cruisers—which it is believed it is urgent under the Treaty to scrap. The second question I want to ask is: Are we sure that Japan is, in fact, going to scrap or sink those five—or seven—cruisers? Have they done so yet? I will gladly give way to the Noble Lord. We know that they have refused to make any future naval treaty after 31st December, and that they will be absolutely free to build any class of vessel that they may require. They may be perfectly free to build cruisers with 9-inch guns, or 12,000 or 14,000 tons cruisers. Only those cruisers within the Treaty area will be debarred. Anyway, this happy and prudent Japanese Admiralty is absolutely free.
I want to know whether they have, in the exercise of their freedom, begun to dismantle and destroy these five or seven cruisers. Before we sink or scrap our five cruisers we ought to know what is being done at the other end of the world. Observe that there is no question of charging Japan with bad faith. My contention is that they are perfectly entitled, if they choose, to retain those vessels, on the ground of the great changes which have taken place in the naval situation in the world and of the


new construction that has taken place. All that they have to do is to notify us of the great recrudescence of naval building and the growth of the German Navy, a factor not foreseen when the Treaty was made. They can invoke the escalator clause, and no one can reproach them, any more than they can reproach us with having departed from the Treaty either in the letter or the spirit.
What is to happen, supposing we destroy our five cruisers, and thereafter the Japanese, as they are perfectly entitled to do, invoke the escalator clause on the general grounds of world shipping, and keep their cruisers? Surely that would not be very satisfactory. We should lose on both counts and on either side. I ask that whoever is going to speak further in this Debate, perhaps the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, will give us a definite assurance that our cruisers will not be destroyed except pari passu with similar Japanese destruction. That, I think, is the least that can be asked.
I therefore conclude: (1) that there is no treaty obligation; (2) that the Government have taken this step because they consider that being five cruisers short in the next two years on our trade routes in the North Sea is a lesser disadvantage than the Japanese retaining five cruisers in the Far East, and (3) that the Government will give us an absolute assurance that, whatever happens, we shall not mutilate our own Fleet until we are sure that similar sacrifices are being made elsewhere.

5.55 p.m.

Sir R. KEYES: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in his discussion with the Noble Lord as to what is to happen to these five cruisers. Everybody wants to keep them, and nobody more than the Admiralty, and if the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has used can persuade the Government that they have the right to keep them, I have no doubt that the Government will do so. I am sure that there will be no scrapping of these cruisers until the very last day of the year, in order to make sure that Japan does not get to windward of us.
I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hills-

borough (Mr. Alexander) had the effrontery to quarrel with the Government for scrapping these five little cruisers when he was responsible for scrapping five great capital ships which were incomparably more powerful and would have been useful for several years for convoy work.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I did not propose at that time to build 20 extra cruisers or 20 extra battleships.

Sir R. KEYES: I think it is quite beside the point. He should not come here and plead any virtue for the London Treaty when the whole country knows what a fearful menace it has been to naval security. It is on account of that Treaty that we have to meet this large expenditure now, instead of being able to spread it over a term of years.
I happened to be in the Mediterranean, and in company with some important units of the Fleet in those waters, when the "Furiou" left the Fleet at short notice to go home; not to embark a number of modern and up-to-date aircraft such as the Navy had been longing for for many years, but, as the Commander-in-Chief sadly told me, to have renovated engines fitted, to replace the worn-out engines in the ancient aircraft which were almost out of date, judged by foreign standards, when I was Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean eight years ago. It is no exaggeration to say that the inadequacy and the inefficiency of the British Naval Air Service is a matter of great concern to the whole Navy.
I mention this because of the speech made last Thursday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), which shows how completely he misunderstands and is out of touch with the feeling in the Naval Air Service and the difficulties with which the Admiralty have to contend in their relations with the Air Ministry. He ended upon a cheerful note, apropos, no doubt, of Lord Beatty's anxiety about the Treaty of London and his untimely death, and he went on to say:
When some other individuals come to take their rest—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Londonderry—this controversy will die a natural death."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1936; col. 1492, Vol. 312.]


One never knows one's luck. I have never played for safety first, but I am only one of the spokesmen of the Navy, and I can assure him that the whole Naval service, from the men on the lower deck who have been debarred by the Air Ministry from being trained as pilots, to the junior naval officers who are spoiling to fly and who were discouraged by the uncertain future in the Naval Air Service, as well as the officers in command of units, commanders-inchief and the Lords of the Admiralty, is thoroughly dissatisfied with the present state of affairs.
It happened that the report of the Debate on the 4th May reached me when I was with the Fleet, and I think it would have gratified my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping if he could have heard the expressions of relief and satisfaction on all sides at his intervention in favour of the Navy being allowed to develop its own air service, and at the powerful speech that he made on that occasion. It is very difficult to get people outside the Naval Service to realise how bitterly the Navy resents the burden which is being placed upon it by this system of dual control, and that is particularly so in the case of those who are striving to build up an efficient air service. Only a few days ago a Member of the Cabinet expressed great astonishment that there was this dissatisfaction and he asked why, if that were so, the Admiralty did not come to the Cabinet about it. My friend Admiral Stanley, the Chief of the American Naval Air Staff, who was a delegate at the recent Naval Conference, was actually told by Lord Swinton, the Secretary of State for Air, that the Navy was perfectly satisfied with the existing state of affairs, and that the dual control of the Naval Air Service was working smoothly and satisfactorily. He was amazed, because every officer in the American Navy knows, as he himself knows perfectly well, of the unhappy experiences and tribulations and difficulties through which we are passing, and, in fact, the United States Navy, profiting by our unhappy experience, insisted on being left alone and allowed to develop its own air service free from outside control. As a result they are 100 per cent. ahead of us now.
On the 19th March, in another place, reference was made to a question that had been put to the Under-Secretary of

State for Air in this House. The statement was as follows:
The Under-Secretary of State for Air was then asked whether any alteration in the degree of control by the Royal Air Force of the Fleet Air Arm or the coastal area is contemplated, and whether he could make any statement on the matter, and the answer given was in the negative. Can I have an assurance that that reply was given with the Prime Minister's authority?
Lord Swinton answered—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant Member is now quoting from a speech made in another place during the present Session. That cannot be permitted.

Sir R. KEYES: I apologise. It was made very clear that the answer was given with the Prime Minister's approval. It is within my knowledge that the Prime Minister has consistently declined to reopen this question. I would like to remind him of a letter which was written by Lord Beatty in 1923, when the Admiralty was forced to accept a compromise. It was to this effect that an innovation so utterly opposed to all principles of naval administration and command could only be regarded as an experiment. The Admiralty have loyally carried out this experiment for many years, and it can no longer be questioned that dual control of the Naval Air Service has failed; and I hope that the judicial inquiry for which Lord Beatty appealed only a few days before he died will be granted. I can assure the House that there is no greater gap in the naval defences of this country than that which is due to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the Naval Air Service.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Does my hon. and gallant Friend remember a speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty last March in this House—it was one of his last speeches here—in which he said that the Naval Air Arm was working wonderfully well with the Royal Air Force, so efficiently that it was a treat to see them working in the carriers together?

Sir R. KEYES: I remember him saying something of that sort. There is not the slightest doubt that the relations between the officers of the Royal Air Force and those of the Navy are excellent; they are very great friends; but that does not


mean that we are satisfied with the administration of our Air Service by the Air Ministry. The fact is that we are thoroughly dissatisfied. I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said in the House last Thursday that he was going into this matter of the relations between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty, and he has indicated that he is taking evidence on the subject, but only on a narrow issue. I take some comfort from his remarks to the effect that he would not hesitate to go to great lengths if he considered it to be necessary. I do not, however, think it quite fair to put him in that position, because he is in no way responsible for the unhappy state of affairs, and I think it is up to the Prime Minister to make some amends to the Navy for the great difficulties under which it has suffered for many years, by appointing a committee, to be presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and composed of men whom the country trusts, and who are free from political bias and from Service bias, to hear the evidence of those who are responsible for this state of affairs and are anxious to perpetuate it—although they have no responsibility whatever for the efficiency of the Navy or the exercise of sea power—so that the Committee can weigh their evidence with the evidence of those who are entirely responsible and who have all the experience behind them.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that all that he is making out is a case for a united Minister of Defence so as to abolish all these jealousies which are continually creeping up on both sides?

Sir R. KEYES: No, I am not making a case of that sort; I am making a case for the Navy to be allowed to develop its own air service, unrestricted by outside influences. I turn now to a happier subject. I should like to congratulate the Government on following the advice of their trustworthy and experienced naval advisers, who are trusted in the Navy, by making provision for layink down two battleships without any further delay, despite the criticisms of irresponsible and pretentious so-called experts who have neither experience, nor experiments, nor technical knowledge to guide them. I

think, however, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is very wise to invite them to give evidence, and also to invite those people who have been laying down the law in this House and in a certain section of the daily Press to give evidence. I hope it will be possible to publish their evidence and cross-examination, in order that the House and the country generally may appreciate how they have been misled. Matters have been made very difficult for those who are responsible for conducting the affairs of the Navy by all this irresponsible criticism.
One name has been frequently mentioned in the House in this connection, that of my friend Admiral Richmond. He is a great naval historian, but I think it is only fair to him and to the country and this House that it should he realised that he has had no experience in handling a modern fleet or a fleet air arm, and has no technical knowledge behind him on which to advise the Government as to the power and strength of the ships that they should build to counter the powerful ships that other nations are building on the thresholds of our trade routes. I hope my right hon. Friend will invite him to this committee, because, after all, he is a great historian and has studied history, and he must realise, and would be able to prove to the committee from the lessons of history, that unilateral reduction in the size of ships is as dangerous as unilateral disarmament. We had unhappy experience of that at Coronel. To go back still earlier, our frigates had to meet American frigates which were far more powerful and better protected than ours, and we suffered most humiliating defeats until the "Shannon" was especially prepared and waited off Boston to fight the "Chesapeake" when she came out, with happier results.
I have mentioned that I was recently in the Mediterranean, where our Fleet has been maintained at a sufficient strength to fulfil any obligation that it may be called upon to undertake in those waters, but only at the expense of other stations and by paying off capital ships to provide crews for the numerous submarine-hunting craft which are considered necessary to meet the deliberate menace of Italian submarines. During my cruise I visited Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia, and I was immensely struck by the friendly feeling towards Great Britain


on the part of the people whom I met in those countries. It augurs well for peace and security in the Mediterranean. But one heard on all sides of ceaseless Italian propaganda to the effect that the British nation is too self-indulgent to make sacrifices to defend its possessions, and that at any time the Italians could drive us out of the Mediterranean and thus jeopardise the security of our Eastern possessions. That sort of propaganda is rife all over the Mediterranean.
The British Navy has often been challenged before; it has often passed through difficult times and been allowed to decline when the political horizon was clear; it has even been driven out of the Mediterranean, temporarily; but, nevertheless, it has always emerged triumphant in the end, owing to some trait or quality in our race—rather latent sometimes—and a belief and faith and a sometimes tardy realisation that our future depends upon the maintenance of sea power. Air power has not in any way lightened the responsibilities of the Navy in that direction. I was thinking of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough who, I suppose, will wind up the Debate, to 'withdraw the Amendment, but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), I suppose it is hopeless to ask him to do so. Still, it would have been a good thing to have shown to the world that this country is united in its determination to maintain a sufficient Fleet equipped with an efficient Naval Air Service to give security to the Empire, to fulfil our obligations, and to enable this country once more to play a decisive part in the maintenance of peace. Since it is useless to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that, I can only say: God help England and Great Britain if he and his friends are ever responsible for our defences again.

Wing-Commander JAMES: May I be allowed to make a. short personal explanation? I had no thought of the late Earl Beatty in my mind in any remarks that I made last week. He was a man for whom I, like everyone else, entertained the liveliest admiration, the more so in my case since I only met him in the pleasant circumstances of the hunting field. On looking at them again I am even now quite unable to make any connection between my remarks and Lord

Beatty. Nor had I any intention of expressing a wish for anyone's death, least of all hon. and gallant admirals. I think that my remark about my friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) shows that. What I meant was that I hoped the time would come when the generation of serving sailors and airmen who have become so deeply involved in this controversy would pass away and those troubles would be-amicably settled. My whole argument was directed towards the need for improved co-ordination upon Admiralty and' Air Ministry alike. Perhaps we shall come on common ground when I say this. My whole plea last Thursday was directed towards that impartial inquiry into the whole problem for which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked to-day. It was because I believe that such controversies as my hon. and gallant Friend and I have exposed by our differences may illustrate the need for the co-ordination of the Services that I referred to this problem on the Co-ordination Vote last week.

6.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I rise with a, certain amount of nervousness in a Debate on the Navy Estimates because, when I last did so, I had the misfortune. to incur the very severe wrath of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who flies his flag in North Paddington. In fact he was so angry with me that he reminded me of an advertisement that I read in the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday, which began:
The veins in the Admiral's neck
Swelled with rage as he rampaged the deck.
I am sorry if I incurred his wrath, but I must fortify myself first with the reflection that in the future life we are promised we shall have no more sea, so that we shall, be able to agree up there anyhow, and, secondly, with the reflection that there are no ranks in this House where we are sent by our constituents to represent the case on these great matters as we see it. In that respect I realise that you, Sir, have almost divine attributes inasmuch as you have an all-seeing eye, and in that eye all Members are equal. I should like to refer to a point that I raised in a question the other day to the Prime Minister concerning the difficulty of getting replies in our Debates on naval subjects from the Parliamentary


Secretary and the Civil Lord. The Prime Minister gave me a mild touch of an Olympian rebuke, which would have been more effective if I felt that his seat on Olympus was not quite so tottering and, I understand, so temporary as it at present. I was told that there was no evidence of any failure to get replies to our questions, and that there was no resentment on that ground anywhere in the House. Before I put my question I had been informed from many quarters that very real resentment was felt at the inability to get replies, and an analysis which I had prepared of questions which had been put showed quite clearly that my question was well grounded in that respect. It has been truly said to-day that we have had a more satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary and that many points have been cleared up. I am delighted at the coincidence that this change of heart should have occurred so soon after I put my question, although I was informed that there was no ground for it.
There is one further question that I should like to ask. It has been said that this inquiry into the battleship is dead before it was born but, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, there are still a great many people up and clown the country who are deeply interested in the question of the value of the battleship, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he agrees with the interpretation of his undertaking about this inquiry that was given by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on Thursday. As I understood it, and as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) understood it, the Parliamentary Secretary gave a most clear undertaking that the inquiry into the battleship would not be confined to the question of its vulnerability from the air but would go into the matter in all its aspects. The interpretation put upon the undertaking by the Co-ordinating Minister on Thursday was that everything the Parliamentary Secretary said under that heading was qualified by a sentence that critics of the battleship must not make airy speeches about what aircraft can or cannot do and, because that sentence occurred in the undertaking, it followed that the undertaking only referred to the

vulnerability of the battleship from the air and that there was no undertaking to inquire into any other aspect.

Lord STANLEY: I have not the speech with me, but I think the first part of the remarks that I made about battleships dealt with their use during the War, and immediately after the War an inquiry was set up as to whether battleships should be continued with or not. They reported in favour of the battleship. Therefore, as far as the lessons of the War were concerned, we had ample evidence that battleships were an essential part of the Fleet. But since then there has been greatly increased development in the air, and we had to consider again as to what steps we should take to protect battleships from air attack, and it is certainly from that point of view, as my right hon. Friend made clear the other night, that I made the promise I did with regard to the inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: The last thing I wish to do is to misquote or omit anything in quotation, but a phrase from the speech was:
I really want people to feel confident about battleships, to feel that they are necessary. I do not want people to go about feeling that their money has been wasted on battleships.

Lord STANLEY: That is perfectly right, but it is no good having another inquiry when an investigation has already been made. I want an investigation into new points.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: That inquiry took place somewhere about 1920 or 1921—a very long time ago. Many new factors have entered into the question since then and if, as the Noble Lord said, he really wants people to feel confident on this question of battleships I can assure him that people wish to be reassured on many other points as to their function and their necessity besides that of their vulnerability from the air. I understand from his reply that he accepts the interpretation of his undertaking that was given by the Minister for the Coordination of Defence. That interpretation will certainly cause a great deal of surprise to many who understood the speech as covering far wider ground.
May I now turn to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) concerning


an inquiry into the Navy based, as I understand, upon the model of the Esher Committee, which inquired into the organisation of the Army after the War. I understood the Noble Lord to say that he thought one reason why such an inquiry was unnecessary is that both the Army and the Air Force have taken the Navy as their model in any organising or reorganising of their Departments. That is extremely flattering to a naval officer and to the Navy, but models grow out of date. I do not know if the Noble Lord is still driving a motor car that he might have bought in 1906 or somewhere about then when you had to get in at the back. The model has changed. Models have to be brought up to date, and I do not think it should be assumed that, because the Navy set a perfect example at the time of the Esher Committee, it is now in all respects a model for every Government Department. I think there is very good ground for saying that some such inquiry is long overdue and that it certainly ought to have much wider terms of reference than to inquire into questions of costings and profits, as was suggested. In my opinion some thorough-going inquiry on the lines of the Esher Committee is long overdue. I fear that there is very little chance of the Government appointing any such committee.
The administration of the Navy has been a matter of slow accretion, like a coral island, and in many respects it all dates back to the days when fleets were away from all touch with authority for months, in some cases years at a time, and in those days the Admirals in command of fleets, because they had to maintain discipline in those circumstances, had to be erected into something very like gods. They were a despotic authority. They represented the law, the Crown, the Church and everything else in those fleets, and the Admiralty has to some extent preserved the traditions of autocracy which grew up in those conditions. I am not alone in saying that the Admiralty is not entirely free from the charge of a tendency to ride roughshod over other Government Departments, that it bullies the Treasury, that the Board of Admiralty certainly expects by a sort of divine right to get its own way with the Government of the day, and that it shows other marks of autocracy in being wasteful, intolerant and self-complacent. Lord

Fisher certainly did a great deal during his administration to introduce reforms and to stop wastefulness, but he was mainly occupied with putting through the policy of the big ship, and also with the task of getting rid of personal opponents to his schemes. During his tenure of office he left a great many sides of naval administration unreformed. I think the time is now ripe for an enormous simplification in every phase of naval life, beginning at the top with the board and the Sea Lords and spreading right down to every phase of naval life.
There are many grounds for disquiet on this question of naval administration. I should say that one of the first and foremost is the question of the design of our ships. There is real uneasiness and anxiety on this question. The Chief Constructor at the Admiralty visited the "Queen Mary" the other day. When he came away he said, "Quite a good ship; in fact, we could not have built a better one ourselves." I do not doubt that this was meant to be humorous, but it came from the Admiralty constructors who built the Royal Yacht, which, I suppose, was one of the most utter failures ever put afloat.

Major The Marquess of TITCHFIELD: That is 40 years ago.

Sir RONALD ROSS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) think of something a little more recent than that which happened 'under Sir William White 40 years ago?

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Or he might as well go back to the days when the Ark was built.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I am very much obliged for the interruptions because in the course of debates in this House I have called attention to acknowledged failures in warship design of a very much later date than that. The County class cruisers before the War, the battle cruisers during the War, the 10,000-ton cruisers after the Washington Conference, and several classes of submarines were all complete and acknowledged failures in design. I might remind the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me that in the ease of one submarine that was built, the naval staff were asked to define what her function was, and from that day to this they have


never been able to answer the question of the Rear-Admiral of Submarines on that point. I do not have to speak of the Royal Yacht to prove my case about the faulty designs which have been inflicted upon the Navy for many years now.
To return to the question of the grounds upon which one asks for an inquiry into the administration of the Navy, certainly there are many officers of high distinction who will agree that no proper war doctrine emerged from the Admiralty during the War. I am sorry to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has left the House for the moment, but I am sure that he would agree with me that there was a failure of proper war doctrine at the Dardanelles. During the War our ships and our men suffered severely through faulty administration at the Admiralty which provided them with bad material. There was a shortage of mines, the shells were not altogether satisfactory, and I have mentioned the battle cruisers which were death traps. There was inertia at the Admiralty about the submarine menace. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth could tell the House about the muddles and inefficiencies of the Dover Patrol before he took it over. After the War we had to face the same thing; there was no conception of proper design or of function. The Admiralty are unable to convince the public even about the necessity for the battleship, about which the Noble Lord confesses that public opinion is very uneasy and very divided to-day. Coordination with the Air has not been thought out. We have had the very regrettable incident of Invergordon, and we had this extraordinary state of affairs in the Mediterranean last year. All these things show the necessity for overhaul and for a fresh start. In that connection I would like to call the attention of the House to the recommendations of the May Committee in regard to the Navy. The May Committee in their recommendations stated that the Admiralty, as well as the other Services, should be examined immediately after the conclusion of the Disarmament Conference to determine the organisation best fitted to carry out the national requirements with the least expense. Has that inquiry

ever been held? The May Committee said:
The prospects for economy and administrative control must depend on a more determined effort at co-ordination by the Departments and this, in, turn, must be generated by the influence of the increased application of financial pressure which will oblige the Departments to seek economies in administrative changes.
There the May Committee evidently thought that there was reason to inquire into the administration of the Admiralty. Has that recommendation ever been carried out? They recommended that there should be reasonably long term planning ahead, which, they thought, must be more economical than an annual programme, and suggested that a guaranteed income over a series of years would enable wiser use to be made of the provision available. If the principle is approved "the Department should be content to accept a lower annual average provision than their present expenditure." Has that ever been gone into? I pass over some smaller points about police in dockyards, but they made a great point of the replacement of plant and machinery in dockyards on an organised system instead of the haphazard system which prevails to-day. They recommended the Board of Admiralty to give close attention to all questions of naval stores and naval armaments. One of the last recommendations to which I call particular attention is the following. They said:
It is common knowledge that varied opinions are held in the Navy itself as to the wisdom of the policy embodied in certain designs of ships of war.…We recommend that, before the next Naval Conference, the Government should appoint a representative Committee to inquire into the whole subject of naval design and to consider whether any modifications might be adopted… would lessen the cost of naval defence without endangering national security.
Has that inquiry ever been held? The extracts which I have read from the findings of the May Committee afford ample support for the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that an inquiry into the whole system of the Navy from top to bottom is advisable in the interests of national economy and naval security. I am certain that sooner or later such a committee of inquiry will be held, and until it is held, I fear that public opinion in this country will have little confidence in


the administration of the Board of Admiralty.
I turn to another point which looms so large in the Supplementary Navy Estimates—the Mediterranean and the events of last year in that sea. I call the attention of the House to the fact that in the statement accompanying the Naval Estimates the First Lord put his name to the following paragraph when dealing with the Fleet and the exercises which took place in the Atlantic:
Apart from the strategical and tactical experience gained, these exercises also provided a searching and satisfactory test of the general efficiency of the Fleet as a whole. Although ships were steaming at varying and often high speeds throughout the eight days, no single case of failure or breakdown was reported.
How are we to reconcile that with the statement of the Prime Minister in October or November of last year as to the inefficiency of the Fleet? We had a statement in the Naval Estimates that the Navy came through its last exercises triumphantly, no breakdowns, everything splendid, but the same fleet in October or November of last year was inefficient, and, in the Prime Minister's opinion, unable, apparently, to stand up to the tests or calls which might be made upon it.
Now about the movement of the Fleet in the Mediterranean last year. Why did the Fleet move from Malta to Alexandria? It was not on behalf of the League or on behalf of the Government's foreign policy of collective security, and it did not move there in support of sanctions. It moved, we are told, because the Italian Press had been speaking so violently and bitterly about this country that apparently we felt in danger of attack by Italy in the Mediterranean. It was the Italian Press which bustled the Mediterranean Fleet in a hurry out of Malta to take refuge at Alexandria, where it lay at anchor watching the Italian ships pass by to the Suez Canal on their way to build up the very formidable threat to our Far Eastern route with which we are now confronted. Our Navy lay at Alexandria watching the Italian ships go by on that errand. This fear of attack was not quite in harmony with the opinion formed during the War of the Italian Navy by those who served in the Mediterranean.
I should like to ask two questions. The events of those days show that the

Admiralty regard Malta as a base which we cannot hold if threatened with attack. Therefore, will the Noble Lord explain why we have continued to build up and maintain a great naval base there? I understand that one reason for the evacuation—for it was nothing else—of Malta was fear of air attack. Who has been responsible for the anti-aircraft defences of Malta, and what has happensd to the officer responsible for those defences if, when faced with this demonstration in the Italian Press, our Fleet had to clear out of Malta for fear of air attack? There is clear evidence that we have continued to maintain the Fleet in the Mediterranean without there being in the opinion of the Admiralty any safe base in the Mediterranean for it. If that is not true, why is it that the Fleet cleared out of Malta? What was it?
The second question is: What is it of which we were so afraid? Why were we so afraid for our Fleet at that time? We were so afraid that we had two Commanders-in-Chief out their—another instance of that dualism which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says is such a feature of the Government's policy. They even carry it into that sphere. They had two Commanders-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet out there. We had an enormous preponderance of naval tonnage in the Mediterranean, and yet there was this state of affairs. In what the papers like to call "well informed social circles" in London, they were having a grand time last November and December telling us of all the terrible things that might happen to us in the Mediterranean. There were submarines popping up everywhere. Our ships did not dare to move for fear of the submarines popping up all round them. The Italians had bombing aeroplanes that would fly 500 or 5,000 miles an hour and carry 5,000 or 50,000 tons of bombs, and they could leave Italy and bomb London and get back the same day, and I do not know what. Those were the remarkable stories which were flying about, but the story to which I should like to call particular attention and about which I should like to ask some questions was the well-repeated story all over London, that the fear about the Fleet was due to the Fleet not having sufficient ammunition or reserves of ammunition; that it was because of the shortage of ammunition


that we were in this state of fear about our Mediterranean Fleet.
Is this true or not? Had the Fleet the ammunition or had it not the ammunition? If it had the ammunition, why the cold feet about the Italian Fleet? Why all this fear and panic if the Fleet had the ammunition? But if it is true that the Fleet had not the ammunition, what has the First Lord been doing all these years? This House has been voting him the money for which he has asked in the Naval Estimates. He has been given the money by this House to buy the ammunition, and if the Fleet had not the ammunition what has been done with the money given to the First Lord with which to buy it? We know that in the Chinese Army these things happen. The general is given the money with which to buy the ammunition, and when the day for battle comes along there is no ammunition. That is why the Chinese army when they fight beat gongs, make hideous noises and make faces at each other. In that case, we can guess what happened, but in the present case some explanation ought to be given why it is that the British Fleet has not the ammunition, when this House has voted the necessary money with which to buy the ammunition. If the Fleet had the ammunition, will the Noble Lord explain why the Admiralty should have got into such a state of funk as to necessitate the establishment of two Commanders-in-Chief in the Mediterranean.
If Malta, as a base, cannot be held because it provides no security for the Fleet, and if the Fleet was so badly off for ammunition, I cannot understand why the First Lord of the Admiralty did not resign. He held office for four and a-half years, and during the General Election he got a certificate from the Prime Minister that the Navy was not equal to its task. I should have thought that in the face of such a severe rebuff as that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have resigned. As he did not resign, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister did not call for his resignation, if that was the state to which he had reduced the Fleet after holding office for those years. I think it is a most discreditable episode. I know that the Conservative party rather likes to be called the "Blue water school." I am not sure

that the blue funk school is not a little nearer the mark. They want to build battleships, but I should like to know what they think battleships are for. Apparently, they think that they are something to lie off the yacht squadron lawn during Cowes Week, so that they do not want ammunition but only a few saluting charges. I should like to have some information in regard to the episode of scuttle in the face of attacks in the foreign Press.
Naval policy must or should depend upon foreign policy. We are completely unable to get any clear statement from the Government on the basis of their foreign policy. We had an instance today when the Noble Lord said that we have to build battleships because France and other countries are building them. How that fits in with the policy of collective security I do not know. The Foreign Secretary says that collective security is the basis of our foreign policy, but the Noble Lord says that we have to build battleships because France is building battleships. That is an illustration of the complete confusion of mind in which the Government are on this question. Collective security is not their policy. It is collective obscurity which is their policy at the present moment.
We distrust the Government on account of their failure to give a clear account of foreign policy. We distrust the administration of the Navy by the Admiralty because of their failure to give us any clear statement in regard to safety of trade in the Mediterranean and on the Cape route, because of their failure to give any reply to the questions about battleships or the new problems that have to be worked out between the Navy and the Air Force. All these things are outward and visible signs of muddle in administration at the Admiralty. It is because of the Government's failure to give us a statement on foreign policy, and as a protest against the waste and inefficiency of their Admiralty administration, that I shall vote in favour of the reduction moved by my hon. Friend.

6.49 p.m.

Sir R. ROSS: It is always interesting to hear the hon. and gallant Member, and particularly interesting to hear him telling off the Admiralty. There is one thing which I should be even more eager to hear, and that is what it was the


Admiralty said to him when he was in the Service that makes him miss no opportunity of having a slap at them.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I never had a wrong word with an admiral during my time in the Service.

Sir R. ROSS: I am glad to hear that, but I think the Admiralty must have had a few wrong words with the hon. and gallant Member. At any rate, that is the impression that is left on the minds of those who listen to him. I will try to stick rather closer to the matter before the House than did the hon. and gallant Member. He went so far back as to discuss the design of ships that have been broken up 20 years, and I could see the blush on the face of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when his hon. and gallant Friend was castigating him for having built 10,000 ton cruisers in considerable quantities during the time that he was at the Admiralty.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member is surely not suggesting that we built 10,000 ton cruisers in 1929.

Sir R. ROSS: The right hon. Gentleman did not build much, but I think he did build 10,000 ton cruisers.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We did not build any 10,000 ton cruisers in 1929.

Sir R. ROSS: Well, they were coming into service when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Admiralty, and I do not remember him making any criticism of them. He cancelled so much that it is difficult to remember what he cancelled and what he did not cancel. I should like to deal with an important point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It is very rarely that I find myself at any serious difference with him on naval matters. He fought the Naval Treaty of 1830 and I did my best, in a humble way, to fight it, too. The question on which he spoke at some length, a most important question, was that of "C" class cruisers. He alluded to Article 21 of the Treaty, and I think the right hon. Member who is to speak later in the Debate will also allude to Article 21. In my view, the construction which my right hon. Friend put upon that Article was

faulty, because he left out certain considerations. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend is now here, so that I may have an opportunity of explaining one of the very rare occasions on which I differ from him on naval matters. In Article 21 our powers of estimating are strictly drafted. The article says:
If, during the term of the present Treaty, the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Party in respect of vessels of war limited by Part III of the present Treaty are, in the opinion of that Party, materially affected by new construction of any Power other than those who have joined in Part III of this Treaty, that High Contracting Party will notify the other parties to Part III, etc.
The occasion when we can avail ourselves of the escalator clause is only by that Article when we consider that our security is affected by new construction. Let me consider the situation as I see it at the present time. I am strongly of opinion that our position has deteriorated very seriously since the time when the right hon. Member for Epping was at the Admiralty. I think that is agreed. Why has it materially deteriorated? Not so much owing to new construction as to the general deterioration of world affairs. At that time there did not seem to be many war clouds on the horizon, but to-day it is very different. Be it noted that it is only in respect of new construction by those countries which are not parties to Part III that Article 21 deals. It may be that a case could be made out on the new construction programme as regards that, but in so doing I think we should be pointing our finger at naval Powers which, as far as we can see at present, are not in any disagreement with us or our building programme, so far as the class of ships we are considering is concerned.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend surely does not suggest that the French Government would take it amiss if the British had five extra cruisers?

Sir R. ROSS: I think the French Government might take it amiss if we said that we considered her new construction a menace to our naval position, and that is what it would amount to.
There is another point in connection with Article 21, My hon. Friend stopped at the consideration of that Article. He considered it very fairly up to the point


where the word "Thereupon" occurred. He did not press matters so much in regard to that, except as to Japan. This is a matter of great importance. Article 21 says:
Thereupon"—
that is, if this country has availed itself of the escalator clause:
the other Parties to Part III of this Treaty shall be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified and such other Parties shall promptly advise with each other, through diplomatic channels, as to the situation thus presented.
That shows what the situation is. The whole culminating point of this Treaty — which I certainly fought to the utmost; my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was a general and I was an industrious private —

Mr. CHURCHILL: A very capable captain.

Sir R. ROSS: —is that when we come to the 31st December of this year we come to the stated date when the Treaty is more operative than it is at any other period of its existence. What happens if we avail ourselves of the escalator clause? We have to decide our course of action under Article 21, which comes after the word "Thereupon." We then open up the construction of all the other parties to the Treaty, and as it seems to me we actually scrap the Treaty, as regards its usefulness, at its most important time. I hope that no one will accuse me of being unduly favourable to this Treaty, which I have always thought was a disadvantageous Treaty from our point of view, but I do say that we must stand by a Treaty to which we have put our hand. Just before it reaches its most critical date it would be a very serious decision to make, to tear it up and leave it of no force or effect.
I should like to allude to the five "C" class cruisers which have been the subject of so much controversy. To begin with, it is clear that whatever has been done some ships would have had to be scrapped. I think that three "C" class cruisers, or the equivalent tonnage of four ships, would have had to be scrapped. The ships that have been chosen are not of great naval value at

present. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and any person of naval experience will agree, that in a war anything that can steam is of value, but we have lamentable instances of relying too much on ships that are being put to a use for which they are not properly suited. These "C" class cruisers have done a longer period of service at sea than any of the ships which were in commission at the beginning of the War. They were certainly older ships than "The Good Ho)e." A good deal of that service was war service, and although I am as eager as any hon. Member to see the Navy strong and able to do its work, I do riot think that it is worth jeopardising any international good feeling on naval matters by trying to keep a couple of these "C" class cruisers which are on the verge of being worn out.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) made an interesting speech, full of vigour and full of fog, because although he attacked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, he did not state what his own views were, not as clearly as I would like; but as we are going to have the great advantage of having the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) to wind up the Debate for the Opposition, I am sure that he will be able to answer a few of the questions which I would like to put to him. First, we have the common form denunciation of British foreign policy. We were told that it was due to that that there was no subsequent naval agreement. No people could have tried harder to get a naval agreement than the Admiralty did when the other Powers concerned came over. The Conference was wrecked by the early departure of Japan. Have not hon. and right hon. Members opposite got a great responsibility for that? Do they remember the line which they took as regards Japan when there was trouble in Manchuria? Do they recall what they said about Manchukuo? The right hon. Member for Hillsborough could not be drawn the other day as to whether he would have made a war on behalf of China against Japan or not. I do not suppose that he will be drawn to-day, but I would ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to examine their own record vis-a-vis


Japan, and whether the very frank expression of their opinion did not do more than anything else to put Japan out of the Conference and wreck it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the hon. Member has asked me a question, perhaps I might put one back to him. If he says that we put Japan out of the Conference by our attitude, does he not think that his party bears some responsibility for its attitude to Japan over Manchuria? There was nothing but muddling and futility for 17 months.

Sir R. ROSS: As usual the right hon. Gentleman does not say what he would have liked to have done. He says that there was muddling and futility for 17 months. That is so easy. But was he prepared to threaten war against Japan on behalf of China? Yes or no. I will give way to him.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Was the hon. Gentleman's Government prepared to back the League? I will answer his question when I speak presently, but I want to get the hon. Member's answer before he sits down. Was his Government prepared to back the League and say that Japan ought to be declared an aggressor State and therefore not a suitable State to take part in a Naval Conference?

Sir R. ROSS: That is such an easy question to answer that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman asked it. If he followed the affair he would have seen that no appeal was made by China to the League. If China had made an appeal we should have fulfilled our part. Now that I have given him a good answer I hope that he will not shirk his obligation but will deal with the question as frankly. Throughout all this time we have always wanted to know what is the attitude of those hon. Members opposite who take an interest in naval affairs towards the cruiser question. Do they say that it is unjustifiable to increase the number to 70 and that it ought to remain at 50, because there is one remark which I remember the right hon. Member for Hillsborough making when he was First Lord, and that is that he resented people thinking that he and the people with him were not just as keen to effect the security of this country at sea as anyone else. I remember how pleased I was when he said that, but in fulfilling the duty to oppose are they really fulfilling

the eagerness which they showed then to see that the country is properly equipped at sea? It is one thing to say that a thing is expensive; it is entirely different to say that the expense is unjustified. Those who criticise the Government ought to state specifically in what way the programme is excessive. Is the programme of 70 too much? I hope that the right hon. Member will answer that.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Member threw an interesting sidelight on the events of some years ago in Manchuria. He suggested that if China had made an appeal to the League for support, we would readily have placed our Navy at her disposal.

Sir R. ROSS: My hon. Friend misheard me. I said that we would have fulfilled our part. My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. MANDER: I do not wish to do that but we should have fulfilled our part collectively with the other Members of the League and our part would obviously have been the British Navy. Every other Power would have put in her contribution. But it is perfectly well known by all those who took any interest in the matter that the reason why China did not make that request was that it was made clear that we had no intention of doing anything of the kind. The position that we on these benches take up with regard to the Estimate before us is this: We are very proud of the great services of the British Navy to this country in the past. We realise that to-day she has a different task to perform—that is, to take her due and proper share in collective security under the new order, and we desire that share to be adequate and proper to our position as the greatest naval Power in the world. We feel doubtful whether the Government propose to use the Navy for any purpose of that kind, but in so far as they do they will have our full backing.
We deprecate the pre-judging of the big battleship issue at this moment. We feel that it is a big mistake to build two battleships now before an adequate inquiry has taken place. We and the country learned with great surprise that the inquiry is merely to see what type of armour the ships should possess. It is true that an inquiry took place in 1920,


but so many things have happened since that there should be another, and the country will not be satisfied until an inquiry takes place. It is all very well for experienced Admirals to come down here and utter their full knowledge and tell us what they think, but there are a good many laymen who are not satisfied with that. Many of us would like the report of an impartial committee, composed of people not interested on one side or the other, in order that we can form our own judgment as to how far the case is made out for the big battleship, or otherwise. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) was hardly justified in the criticism he made of Admiral Richmond, who has great experience, and whose opinion, I think, is of greater value than my hon. and gallant Friend was inclined to say.
We are under obligations in the matter of the exchange of technical information. We have a very precise obligation under Section 6, Article 8, of the Covenant of the League:
Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armament, their military, naval and air programmes,
and I only regret that that has not been carried out to the full in the past. Anything that claims to make that possible is a step in the right direction, and in so far as that can be made public so much the better. We are being asked to-night to vote a sum of £2,000,000, in addition to equally large sums voted in the past, for the purpose of keeping the British Navy in the Mediterranean, and I was very interested to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and the admirable way in which he dealt with this question. There appeared to be two opinions as to how effectively the Navy was able to organise in the Mediterranean. We are told by some that everything went splendidly and by others that things were far from satisfactory. I would like to call the attention of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to something he said the other clay. He gave his version, and the "Times" spoke of his observations in this way:
He spoke of the dispositions that were made with so sure a touch, and with such a remarkable anticipation of the course of events.'

That is a point of 'View from which some differ greatly. The "Times" went on to say:
But it did not appear that some of the steps which were then and thereafter taken in haste had been adequately thought out beforehand. And thinking does not depend on a large increase in the Estimates.
I hope that now we have my right hon. Friend there to think, the situation will become much better than it was in those latter days of last year. I want to know the precise object of having the Fleet in the Mediterranean at all. Why are the Government asking for a sum of £2,000,000? All that the Fleet has done is to perform the useful but minor function of transferring the Emperor of Ethiopia from Jibuti to Palestine, and from Palestine to Gibraltar. I should have thought it might have done other things as well. If you are not going to use it the sooner you bring it away the better, and save all the money wasted on a perfectly useless expedition. I do not think that you can prevent war by running away from every threat of a bully, and that is what you have been doing. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth referred to the contempt with which we were regarded by many peoples surrounding the Mediterranean. That is perfectly true. To have the great British Navy there, watching armaments and troops and poison gas going through the Suez Canal day after day, with this country pledged to prevent it, and not permitted to do anything, no wonder so many nations are thinking that our day is spent and that we no longer have the moral courage which used to distinguish us in the old days.

Sir R. KEYES: Is the hon. Member referring to me?

Mr. MANDER: Certainly.

Sir R. KEYES: I said, on the contrary, that I was astonished and impressed by the friendly attitude of people in the Mediterranean.

Mr. MANDER: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that certain nations around the Mediterranean regarded us with contempt.

Sir R. KEYES: Not a bit.

Mr. MANDER: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon and gallant Member.


I received the other day a letter from a friend in Egypt reporting a conversation he had with an officer in the Egyptian Army. The officer had always looked upon Great Britain as the sure support of Egypt, but he said that as a result of the events of the last few months it was perfectly clear that Great Britain was no longer able or willing to carry out her obligations for the defence of Egypt, and it would be necessary for other steps to be taken to ensure its proper defence. That is an example of a widespread feeling in that part of the world. In a well-known speech it was said that we had not done anything because no other country had moved a ship or a gun or a man, but directly afterwards it was discovered that they had never been asked. When they were asked they all came in, and as a result of staff conversations were prepared to play their part in collective defence in case of attack by the Italian aggressor. Are these staff conversations up to date? Are the League forces in the Mediterranean in all respects adequate, as I believe they are, to repel any attack that the Italian aggressor might make? There is no doubt that a policy of running away and being unwilling to stand up to a bully has created a feeling that there are hardly any limits to what may be done to us.
I want to ask clearly, what is the policy of the British Government in having the Fleet in the Mediterranean? If it is there for use, in exactly the same way as if an attack was made on any part of the British Empire, if that is their policy and it gets into the minds of other nations who may be thinking of using force, then we have seen the end of war for all time.

7.22 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: It is a good thing that foreigners do not hear some of the things which are said in our Debates, because if they had heard the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) say that we had a bad administration at the Admiralty, bad personnel and bad ships, they would come to the conclusion that the whole of our organisation was thoroughly bad. It is a peculiar phase of British character that whenever hon. Members get into opposition they feel that they must at once run down everything which they loyally supported when they were in office.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: It is what your Prime Minister said.

Captain BALFOUR: The Prime Minister has never said that our equipment and personnel and ships were all bad. The point with which I want to deal principally is that which was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes)—the Fleet Air Arm in relation to the Admiralty. I want at the outset to ask for an answer to a question in order to clear up a doubt which I have, and which I rather think the right hon. Member for Epping has in his mind. The other day the Minister for the Coordination of Defence at Question time, when asked whether he would make any statement on the position of the Fleet Air Arm, said that he was making certain inquiries into the adjustment of personnel and equipment. As I understand, he is not making any inquiries into the proposal of splitting the Fleet Air Arm into two. I want to know the scope of the inquiry which the Minister for the Coordination of Defence is now conducting. My interpretation is that it is an inquiry into details and does not cover questions of principle.
I feel that there has been a fog of misrepresentation on the position of the Fleet Air Arm in relation to the Navy, a fog, a smoke screen of misrepresentation, for which the right hon. Member for Epping and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth are largely responsible. Five main criticisms are put forward as to the present position of the Fleet Air Arm by those who advocate a change. The first is the statement made by the right hon. Member for Epping that there is bitter dissatisfaction throughout the naval service. This statement was echoed by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth. Where is the dissatisfaction? When did it arise? The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech introducing the Estimates on 14th March, 1935, said that the relations were harmonious, that the two services were working in harmony and that there was good understanding. It is not for hon. and right hon. Members who are not in the Service to say that there is bitter dissatisfaction in the Service when the First Lord of the Admiralty himself says that there is no such dissatisfaction, and that the two


Services are working in harmony. Such statements do ill service to those who are serving with the Fleet and in the Royal Air Force. As to whether there is bitter dissatisfaction in the Service, I prefer to take the statement of the First Lord rather than the statement of those who, while they have rendered tremendous and great service to the Navy, nevertheless had all their training in the Navy before aeroplanes were invented.

Sir R. KEYES: I said that the relations between the officers in the Royal Air Force and the Admiralty were excellent.

Captain BALFOUR: That is a line of retreat for the hon. and gallant Member in order to enable him to get away from the full implications of the statement he made, and which was made even more strongly by the right hon. Member for Epping, when he referred to the dual control of the Fleet Air Arm. If one looks at the actual facts they are that the Fleet Air Arm is under the complete control of the Navy, except in so far as the Air Ministry acts as agent for training the personnel, housing, and acquiring their equipment. Under the terms of the Balfour report, even the shore training schedules are laid down by the Admiralty. The Fleet Air Arm units are embarked and disembarked at the entire will of the Admiralty, and it cannot be over-emphasised that the operation and control of the Fleet Air Arm are entirely free from the Air Ministry. The right hon. Member for Epping made great play with the question of dual control. He asked when the aeroplane goes up who is in command. Does the sea captain command his ratings when they go ashore? No. It is impracticable for him to do so, just as it is equally impracticable for the sea captain of an aircraft carrier to command a unit of naval ratings when it goes to a naval shore base. The right hon. Member for Epping has complained of shortages in the Fleet Air Arm. Is he sure that they are any greater than the shortages which have existed in the Navy during the past three years? Does he maintain that the Navy in every respect is adequately and properly equipped, except so far as regards the Fleet Air Arm? Does he maintain that the Navy is all right but that the Fleet Air Arm is not?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I think that there are serious defects in both which should be remedied.

Captain BALFOUR: Then I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to debate from the particular to the general and to draw the inference that the Fleet Air Arm is the only part of the Navy that is defective. Is he sure that the Navy is so well equipped and efficient, and that it is only the Fleet Air Arm which is ill-equipped? We all know that ships have been put out of commission in order to enable the complements of other vessels to be made up during the recent emergency owing to shortages. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, and it is well known, that the three Services have been short of men and equipment as a result of the policy of successive Governments. The fourth complaint of the right hon. Member for Epping was of the size of the Fleet Air-Arm. Are the Air Ministry to blame for that? The Fleet Air Arm has not been drained of one single aeroplane in order to help the expansion of the Royal Air Force. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Fleet Air Arm size is based on naval requirements as specified by the Admiralty, and if the Fleet Air Arm was increased to the number of 217 aircraft by 1936 there would not be enough ships to take them. Are there any ships to-day which are short of aeroplanes or their complement of aircraft?

Sir R. KEYES: Aircraft of a sort.

Captain BALFOUR: Certainly, but both the Navy and the Royal Air Force requirements are being modernised. The same criticism applies just as much to the Navy as to the Fleet Air Arm, and it is unfair on the part of those advocates of the Navy, who have entire control of the Fleet Air Arm, to criticise the Royal Air Force when at the same time their own service has shortages which might equally well be criticised. Those who advocate the splitting up of the Royal Air Force advocate that the control of the Fleet Air Arm should be put under the Admiralty. Has the right hon. Gentleman prepared for the duplication and increase in overhead charges caused by separate accommodation, separate stores, separate repairs and equipment, separate training schools and


depots, which would be entailed if the Royal Air Force was split up and the control of the Fleet Air Arm given to the Admiralty? There would immediately be divergencies of view which would result in a lack of interchangeability in time of national emergency.
I expect most of us remember Sir William Robertson's book, "Soldiers and Statesmen," in which he said that the Grand Fleet would not spare a man or a rifle after the decisive battle of Jutland when our Army in France was hard pressed for reinforcements. The very position which necessitated the creation of the Royal Air Force was that splitting up of a divergent equipment and I am sure that if we had that separation now again, we should have the same position as that which necessitated the creation of a unified force in 1918. It is very unfair that these attacks should be made on the administration of the Fleet Air Arm by the advocates of the Navy. The Navy is all powerful and has tremendous influences and many advocates, both in this House and outside and to argue and indulge in propaganda persistently for the breaking up of the Fleet Air Arm is not really fair. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will deal quite frankly with the Admiralty's view as to how far they are satisfied with the present principle—

Mr. CHURCHILL: We know what their view is, all right.

Captain BALFOUR: —or whether they are content with the dovetailing efforts under the existing principle for which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has said he is looking at the present time.

Mr. De CHAIR: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether he is trying to represent the point of view of the Royal Air Force or that of the Navy in this matter? I understood him to say that the Navy did not want the control of the Fleet Air Arm, but the Navy does.

Captain BALFOUR: The Navy certainly wants control of it, but I want to know whether the Minister, on behalf of the Navy, will say that the Navy are not content with the present position. Before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping came in, I was dealing with a point arising out of a question

to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I interpreted his reply as being that he was investigating the contact points, and smoothing them out where necessary, between the two forces, but not that he was investigating the principle of the splitting up of the Fleet Air Arm. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that interpretation, I think that one can reasonably ask the Minister to-night to say that the Admiralty are not striving, by adding fuel to the fire, to break up the Fleet Air Arm, but are loyally working to make it as efficient as possible.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. WATSON: The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) made an appeal to us on this side of the House to withdraw our Amendment. He and his friends pledged themselves at the last General Election to a rearmament programme, but we on this side just as definitely pledged ourselves in the opposite direction. We pledged ourselves to no such programme, and that is why we have had a reduction of the Vote moved from these benches. We took that line not because we were indifferent to the defences of this country. As has been said repeatedly from this side, we are interested in the defences of the country and are prepared to take such steps as are necessary in order to defend the country, but there is one thing that has not been demonstrated ever since we came back to this House. It has not been demonstrated that the Navy is in the condition in which it was represented to be by the Prime Minister before the last General Election.
Moreover, we are asked by the Government to commit ourselves to an absolutely unnamed expenditure in connection with defence. Nobody knows what this programme is to cost, whether it will be £200,000,000, £250,000,000, or £300,000,000. All that we know is that during the current year the Admiralty are proposing to spend approximately £80,000,000 for their part of the defence of the country. We on this side wish to be assured that the money that is at present voted for the Navy is being spent to the best possible advantage, whether it is not a fact that we are spending or rather wasting millions of pounds that ought to be spent in other directions, whether, in other words, we are not taking the most effective steps that we could


to defend the country. We are not satisfied on that point, and until we are satisfied we are not likely to look with any more favour than we have clone on this rearmament programme. At the last General Election we on this side pledged ourselves to support the policy of the League of Nations. We were, and are, prepared to play our part along with the other nations that are bound within the League of Nations. Beyond that we are not prepared to go. We are not prepared to say that this country ought to prepare for its defence against the whole of the rest of the world. We say that as long as there is a possibility of getting a League of Nations that can work efficiently, it is our duty to support the League of Nations.
I will not enter into the many discussions which we have had to-day on the question of battleships, cruisers, submarines, aircraft, and all these other things upon which we are always glad to have the advice of the experts. We listen, I think, with due respect to the experts who speak on these important matters, and those of us who are not experts note the differences of opinion between them and the violence with which each holds his opinion from his particular point of view. They are all experts, they all differ, and they all come to different conclusions, so that we are not very much helped by the experts. I do not intend to discuss these matters, but it would be ungracious on my part if I did not say a word or two with regard to that part of this Vote that is going to the dockyard in which I am particularly interested. In this respect I have to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who, during his opening remarks, rather deprecated the spending of money on setting up a training establishment at Rosyth dockyard.
I was pleased to hear, in the House yesterday, an answer to a question which gave us the assurance that a training establishment and the necessary equipment for training apprentices are to be set up in Rosyth dockyard. I am glad that at last the Admiralty are beginning to realise that they have some responsibility for that dockyard. They ought to have a great deal more interest in it, and feel more responsibility for it, than they have done up to the present, but they are really beginning. We have in

this Vote a beginning of the recognition that something ought to be done for Rosyth dockyard, and I am very pleased, speaking personally, that this step is to be taken.
I said, in one of our previous Debates, that we in Scotland were supposed to take, and as a matter of fact did take, very little interest in the affairs of the Navy. The Navy is more or less looked upon as an English institution. You have all the dockyards, you have all the training establishments, and you have practically all the equipment, so far as the dockyards are concerned, in England. We had, a number of years ago, when Rosyth dockyard was in full swing, some little interest in the Royal Navy, because we had our share of the repair and reconstruction work that required to be done to the warships from time to time, but with the reduction of Rosyth dockyard to a care-and-maintenance basis, Scotland has again lost its interest in the Royal Navy.

Mr. McKIE: Is the hon. Member really entitled to make such a remark, that Scotland has no interest in the defences of the country, naval as well as any other?

Mr. WATSON: I am at least producing very strong evidence that we in Scotland have very little cause for interest in the Navy.

Mr. McKIE: That is the inference which the hon. Member puts upon it.

Mr. WATSON: I am arguing my own point of view, and I Is ant the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) to note this, that here we are discussing, a Supplementary Estimate which, along with the Estimate for the year, amounts to £80,000,000, and that we in Scotland ought to be making a greater noise to get more of that money spent in Scotland than is going to be spent there. Instead of raising questions of that kind, the hon. Member for Galloway ought to be supporting me in trying to get more of that money spent in Scotland than is now proposed. I was saying that we had little or no interest, from the encouragement that we got from the spending of this money in Scotland, in the Royal Navy, but I hope that greater facilities are to be provided in Scotland, not only at Rosyth, but in other parts of Scotland as well, for playing our part in naval


affairs. I want to remind the House that you did not forget during the last War that we had men who could play a very useful part on the sea. When you required men to man the mine-sweepers, these were usually found from the ranks of the fishermen. In Scotland we have at this moment a very large number of fishermen and their families who are gradually getting down to starvation level and being deprived of their living through the failure of the fishing industry, and we have in that industry an ideal set of individuals who could play a large part in manning the British Navy. I hope that, in addition to the facilities that are being provided at Rosyth under this Vote, a greater effort will he made to get men who have been accustomed to the sea in Scotland. Let it be remembered that there is hardly a county in Scotland which is not interested in the sea. Scotland is almost surrounded by the sea and her people are well acquainted with it. During the most dangerous period of the War and in the most dangerous work, it was that type of man which was recruited for the Royal Navy. If they can play their part in wartime, they ought to be given an opportunity of playing their part in the ordinary work of the British Navy to a much greater extent than has been the case.
The last time I spoke on this matter, I made a statement which was not entirely correct. I referred to the fact that an old German battleship, which had been raised at Scapa Flow, had been brought to Rosyth and had entered the dockyard on the particular day on which I was speaking. That statement was not true. The old German battleship was not taken into the dockyard that day, but had to lie outside for about a week before it could enter. That was something new so far as the Rosyth dockyard is concerned. When the hulk was ultimately put into the dockyard, I understand it was drawing 43 feet of water. I wonder into what other dockyard in this country that vessel could have been taken. Yet Rosyth dockyard, which could be made the best dockyard in Great Britain, is on a care and maintenance basis, and there are three dockyards in the South of England, none of which is safe either from gunfire or from aircraft, working at full pressure. As a matter of fact, alterations and extensions are being made in some of these

dockyards, and that money would be much better spent in re-equipping Rosyth dockyard and making it play its part in the work of the Royal Navy.
I do not wish to detain the House, because I know there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, but while welcoming the Vote so far as it refers to Rosyth, I hope there is to be more money spent, if not in opening up the dockyard, at least in using the buildings and equipment in existence there at the present time to a much greater extent than has been done so far. I know that the Admiralty have difficulty in that respect in that they must either open up the dockyard on a big scale or not at all. If it were opened on a big scale, that would in all probability mean the closing or one or other of the Southern dockyards, but in view of the position of the country, the danger of war in the not-far-distant future and the possibility of some of the Southern dockyards not being safe from attack, we ought to consider a dockyard which is perfectly safe from attack. Rosyth dockyard is far inland and safe from gunfire from the North Sea or anywhere else; it is defended by forts along the East coast; it is defended within a very short distance by four aerodromes which could deal with any possible air attack from the East; and there would be no possibility of air attack from the West. It is the safest and the best dockyard. I hope we are to be given a little encouragement by having greater use made of that great dockyard which was constructed at such expense.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I wish to say a few words regarding the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who opened for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, which I am sure will make excellent reading in his constituency to-morrow. Some of us who have not constituencies on the coast, cannot give that type of advertisement, although I would be glad to recommend the Crystal Palace as an admirable dry dock should the sea come that way. I wish only to meet two points made by the hon. Member for Aberdare which have not been dealt with during the course of the Debate. One of the points he made, in attacking the Government's expansion programme, was that this


expansion had been necessitated by the bad handling of our foreign affairs. Surely the truth is exactly the reverse. If we had had a greater Navy during these past months, the handling of a very difficult and critical situation in foreign affairs might have been infinitely easier. I do not think the hon. Member's criticism on that basis is a fair one.
The second point which the hon. Member made in the same connection was that the long service of foreign battleships was an argument against the need for any expansion and any construction on our part. He said that the average age of foreign battleships was so great that it did not justify us in building, that it constituted no menace to us and gave us no cause for alarm. That is a perfectly sound argument by itself, but I ask lion. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who, I understand, is to wind up for the Opposition, to put that argument alongside the other argument which the Labour party is constantly advancing, that we need no expansion because we must and can rely upon collective security which, in naval affairs, means relying upon the strength of the navies of other countries. Surely hon. Members opposite cannot advance those two arguments side by side; they cannot say that foreign navies are so old and inefficient that they are no menace to, us and give us no cause of alarm, and at the same time say that we need not look after our Navy because we can rely with assurance upon the navies of foreign countries. I have nothing further to say, except that I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough whether he will explain to the House when he speaks the apparent contradiction in those arguments.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: The reason I intervene in this Debate is that it appears to me that on both sides of the House there is really no fundamental difference on the question of defence, and as I and my colleagues of the Independent Labour party take a fundamentally different position, I have risen simply for the purpose of saying how we differ from both sides of the House in our attitude. This question is always spoken of as the defence of the country, and the amount of money

that is voted for the Navy as being spent on the defence of the country. The Socialist theory has always made it plain that the Socialist looks at these questions not from the point of view of this abstract conception of the country, but from that of the classes in the country. The Socialist theory is that there are two classes which are fundamentally opposed, a class in possession of the means of life exploiting the other class. Hon. Members opposite do not accept that conception, and they speak about the country in a different way, but the conception is one upon which Socialist theory is based.
I wish to make my protest to-night against the expenditure of all this money. I wish to repeat simply in a few sentences my protest against the expenditure of all these millions of money which we say are not for the defence of the country, if one thinks of the country as being the great majority of the people in it—the workers. It is in the defence of the interests of British imperialists. This money is being voted for the defence of the possessing class, the representatives of British Imperialism. The interests of the great mass of the working class are quite aside from the question, otherwise, one of the first questions to be dealt with would be that of the personnel. Greater attention would be paid to the fact that the nation is physically a C3 nation because of the lack of income and the position in which the mass of the people has to live under the present economic system.
Hon. Members opposite say again and again that all parties in this House are united in this matter, but I would ask them not to go on, insisting on that. All parties are not united for the Independent Labour Party is altogether opposed to this programme of expenditure. We believe that these millions of money should be spent on behalf of the working classes. We believe they would be far better spent in providing pensions for the people of the country, in sweeping away the means test and in various other ways in connection with the social services. As I listened to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), when he was seeking to show the dilemma in which hon. Members above the Gangway on this side found themselves, I wondered whether it was micessary to strengthen the British Navy in order to provide a


force for the League of Nations, or whether the British Navy had to be strengthened just because of the strength of other navies. The arguments advanced from this side of the House seemed to work pretty much in the same way. I believe there is no real faith in the League of Nations as an instrument of defence. An idealised conception of the League has been used for the purpose of putting across certain policies—the ideal of a real League of Nations, the members of which would act together as a homogenous body. Every Member on this side of the House ought to know that by the very nature of society as it is constituted to-day the League of Nations can never be a homogenous body. It is simply a mass of contradictory capitalist interests as the struggle for profit goes on in the different countries. The League of Nations will never be the sort of ideal body which has been described, so long as our economic system remains a competitive system.
I also listened with interest to the speech of an hon. Member above the Gangway who put the case for Rosyth. While I think it is the business of a Member of this House to look after the interests of his constituency as fully as possible yet I wonder whether the arguments used in favour of the claims of Rosyth were really good Socialist arguments. As a representative of the working class, one thing which I hate like poison is the idea that we in this House should try to influence the Government, if there is a certain amount of work going, in order to try to grab that work for our own districts—that each of us should strive to see that the workers in his own district were made comfortably off by this work and as regards the workers in other parts of the country should say, "To hell with them; it cannot be helped but our own people have to be made all right." I think the setting of the workers in one part of the country against the workers in another part of the country, setting the workers on the Clyde against the workers on the Tyne or the workers in the north against those in the south, with regard to these orders is all wrong. This Debate has shown more clearly than ever that, for the working class, the fundamental thing is to try to get a united working-class movement. That is the great thing in the matter of defence—the defence of the working

class—and if we could secure that, then the programme of this Government, which is a programme purely in defence of British Imperialist profit and plunder, would be riddled by the arguments from these benches and from those who are fighting for social justice and the overthrow of the present economic system.

8.5 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: One can sympathise with the sincerity of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) in advancing his policy and his ideas, but I would remind him that if his policy were carried out and if this country and the Empire were in consequence left defenceless, there would be no money for increased pensions or social services or anything else. I would also remind him that what we are concerned with here is not the defence of the propertied or capitalist class, but the defence of the country and the Empire as a whole.
The question of battleships has once again been raised in this Debate and the experts have once more been made the targets of virulent attacks from various hon. Members. I was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) should have referred as he did to Admiral Richmond, who is admittedly the greatest naval expert in this country if not in the world. He suggested that Admiral Richmond's opinion on battleships was not worth consideration because Admiral Richmond had never commanded a fleet at sea. I allude to that point only because I entirely disagree with it. Admiral Richmond spent many years in command of a ship at sea and had ample opportunities of making himself fully acquainted with the practical use of battleships. Therefore, I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend's view about Admiral Richmond's advice, although I may differ myself from what Admiral Richmond has said about battleships. That is another point.
I wish to ask a definite question concerning the inquiry into the Naval Air Force. I want to know whether the inquiry is merely intended to find out the causes of friction, if any, under the existing system, between the Air Force and the Navy and as a result of the inquiry to remove as far as possible any such causes of friction, or whether the idea


of the inquiry is to come to a decision on the question as to whether or not the Fleet Air Arm definitely and absolutely is to be turned over to the control of the Admiralty. That is a matter of principle. My hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway went into a great deal of elaborate detail about dissatisfaction and whether the Air Force was working well with the Navy or not and so forth. In my opinion that is beside the point. It is a matter of principle whether the Admiralty should have complete control of the Fleet Air Arm or not, the Naval Air Arm is only one unit of the Naval Service, just like the submarines or the destroyers or any other unit of the Service. I hold that, as one of the units of the Naval Service, the Fleet Air Arm should be under the control of the Admiralty.
We ought to be told definitely whether this committee is inquiring into that question of principle as to whether the Fleet Air Arm is to continue as at present or pass under the control of the Admiralty. Whatever may be said to the contrary, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the naval service about the existing state of affairs. The two Services may be working in the closest co-operation and the greatest amity but that is beside the point. There is dissatisfaction at the inefficiency of the Air Arm as it now exists, and the feeling in the Navy as a whole is that it will never be efficient until it is completely under Admiralty control.

8.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: This Debate has ranged over many subjects and hon. Member of the Opposition have said that they are going to oppose this Vote. Yet they almost tried to involve us in a dispute with Italy which would have entailed the use of the British Fleet although they are not willing to give the Navy the necessary supplies to enable it to carry out its work in accordance with the principle of collective security. On every occasion hon. Members above the Gangway contradict themselves on these questions. We heard one hon. Member to-day say that he wanted money to be spent on the dockyard in his own constituency and at the same time saying that he intended to oppose this Vote.
We have heard again to-day arguments against battleships. I think the Government are to be congratulated on the fact that they are going on with their preparations. What is the use of having these inquiries if the necessary plans and preparations in connection with new types of ships are not produced and if those who are making the inquiries are not to know the result of the experiments which have been male regarding the effect of bombing on battleships? Is this committee to rely upon such information as it can obtain about the battleships now being constructed in foreign countries? Where would we have been in 1914 had we allowed the submarine menace to prevent us building battleships? We should have been in a very awkward position indeed. There were people who said that the money ought to have been spent on more cruisers in order to hunt out and destroy the German raiders, and that we ought to have had more destroyers to deal with the submarine menace, and more light craft generally. But we did not cry out for more battleships, simply because there were so many battleships at Scapa Flow that the Germans were afraid to menace our destroyers and cruisers and to take steps which otherwise might have brought about disaster and brought us nearer to starvation. Because we had that adequate number of battleships we were able to send our cruisers, our light craft, all over the world to defend our commerce and keep us from starvation. I hear other Members complaining about the expense of building battleships. Let us remember that a great deal of this expense goes to giving work to thousands of men, and that it would be far more expensive if, owing to our lack of foresight in replacing battleships, we were to allow foreign battleships to put themselves in strategic positions and thereby bring us into a difficult position and so cause us far more expense to the whole nation by bringing us to the edge of starvation. We have heard criticisms of the naval experts. I think, however, that we want to go by the advice which is given us by the experts, who know what the Navy and the nation desire.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a pity that 1 have to address the House on the Report stage of this Supplementary Esti-


mate at a very inconvenient point. I make no complaint, in a way, about the Noble Lord leaving the Civil Lord to reply to certain questions which have been put, not only to-day but on previous occasions, and which have not been answered, but it seems difficult for a winding-up speech to be made when we have not had the answers from the Parliamentary Secretary to questions which have been put long since.

Lord STANLEY: Not the answers you want.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Not satisfactory answers. We have put questions with regard to Vote 10, with regard to the docks at Gibraltar and the enlargements that are taking place at Devonport. We have had no answers, and what, therefore, can I say about them? When we on this side open up a Debate we are surely entitled to know what are the answers to the main questions.

Lord STANLEY: I suggested that these points should be left to the Civil Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman made no objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am making my protest now. It is very inconvenient that we should have to wait until after we have finished with this subject before we get answers to our questions. May I deal with the answers that we did get from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on the various points. He said, in regard to the general case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), that he regretted that the efforts made to obtain a limitation of naval armaments had not been more successful, and he was insistent in his answer that there was not any panic in, dealing with the naval situation in the world as it now appears. I find it difficult to accept the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government were not dealing with this matter in a panic. When this Estimate is passed we shall spend in the current financial year £80,000,000, the largest sum ever spent in one year on the Navy in peace time. There is absolutely no precedent for this sum, and it appears that in the next financial year we shall spend £100,000,000 in current expenditure on the Navy. I should have thought that that was far nearer panic expenditure than we have ever experienced before in our history in preparation for naval defence.
In the same connection, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were not building against any single Power. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges and many events have happened since 1914, but we are entitled to say that it is a pity we cannot get clear and concise reasons for the programme of the Government such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) used to give the House in 1914. We really knew at that time what the Government were after and preparing for. We are not getting any such information from the Parliamentary Secretary. We have asked again and again whether the Government will tell us, before we vote this money, what they are aiming at in their naval programme, and, except for general terms such as that we are aiming at general security, we get no information. The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell) made a general charge against Members on my side of the House that they are always standing on different legs. He says that we support the policy of collective security under which other League Powers will join against an aggressor, but, at the same time, we are not prepared to vote for the necessary armaments. There is not the slightest ground for that charge being levelled against the Labour party. We have made it perfectly plain, in the case we put to the country at the Election, that we are prepared to maintain efficiently whatever forces are required for collective security. We say that the White Papers on Defence issued by the Government in 1935 and 1936 show clearly that they are not preparing for the commitments required for collective security but are preparing, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) told us, for what they consider sufficient for the defence of the whole British Empire.

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: The ships are out-of-date.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to examine with me at any time vis-à-vis, in a room in the House, the ships of the British Fleet, and to compare them with the ships of other Powers. He will not then have any cause to argue that the British Fleet is any older, more out-of-date, less capable of dealing with modern conditions than


any other fleet in the world. I resent and resist the charge that is always made against the Labour party that it in any way let down the proper standard of British naval efficiency and equipment while it was in office. It is not true, although we were charged with that by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. I remember a Debate in 1931 on the London Naval Treaty when we were able, taking category by category battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines, to demonstrate that by the limitations that were imposed on other Powers at the time of the signing of the Naval Treaty, so far from putting us in an inferior position relatively put us in a stronger position than before the conference of 1930, while at the same time we were saving money on naval armaments. I resent and resist charges that are made in that connection. They are simply not true, and it will not help the people who are rushing into this panic expenditure to tell the country that Labour is playing a double game in this matter. We will vote now for whatever expenditure is necessary for efficient forces to maintain collective security.

Mr. SANDYS: What advantage did Abyssinia get from the collective security?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very glad to have had that interruption, because it shows clearly that the hon. Member is against the whole doctrine of collective security. The complaint of lion. Members against Labour is not that we stand at different times on different legs their complaint is that we defend the doctrine of collective security. If that is the case we know where we are.

Mr. SANDYS: Collective security depends on the great Powers being able to play a great part, and without a Navy we have not been able to play the part that we should play.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not mind continuous interruptions; this is the "cut and thrust of debate" which Mr. Speaker said was wanted, and I do not object to it. Let us think of the last words of the hon. Member. He said that without a Navy we were not able to play our part in collective security. One would have thought that the lack of the proper support of Christian principles as

well as of our commitments under the League in regard to Abyssinia was due to the fact that we had not got a sufficiently big Navy. Do the hon. Member say that? Let him listen to this. This is from the "Evening Standard" of the 8th May, 1936:

"BRITISH NAVY STILL INVINCIBLE."

This is a report of a speech of the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for North Portsmouth male at Malta:
The British Navy maintained the freedom of the seas during the War and maintains it still' declared Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes speaking at a dinner here last night.
I hope it was a very good dinner.
Whatever the Italian command may think to the contrary, he added, our Navy is still invincible and ready and willing to tackle any force that dares to challenge it, whatever their armaments.
I am quoting that from the cabled report in the "Evening Standard."
Malta, he concluded, would certainly remain the British naval base in the Mediterranean in spite of any number of threats.

Sir R. KEYES: That certainly was a part of my speech, but it had reference to the Italian propaganda in Malta that the British Navy could be driven out of the Mediterranean whenever the Italians wished.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Now a different point arises—as to whether the gallant Admiral's speech was only bluff—

Sir R. KEYES: It was not bluff.

Mr. ALEXANDER: —or whether he really held the view that in regard to this Italian situation the British Fleet was invincible. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) whether he agrees with his hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. SANDYS: If the right hon. Member asks me, I must reply. My point is that for effective collective security you must have overwhelming force on the side of the League of Nations. All that the gallant Admiral said was that if we were attacked we would win; but we do not go in for collective security merely to win; we must have overwhelming force.

Mr. ALEXANDER: This becomes more and more interesting. The report of the gallant Admiral's speech which I have


read speaks of the British Fleet being "invincible." If that is not sufficiently strong to satisfy the hon. Member, I do not understand what he wants. In any case, now that we have got to understand each other we know completely where we are. The party that I am speaking for to-night, whilst it believes that adherence to the doctrine of collective security will in the long run mean a reduction of and not an enlargement of the fighting forces, is prepared in dealing with an aggressor to adopt such a policy of armament as is shown to be justified if—and this is the if —the Government will come frankly to the House and say what are the collective contributions being made to collective security by other Powers, and what is the result of conferences with the other Powers as to what they expect us to put into the collective pool. We have asked that again and again in the general debate upon the White Paper, and in the debates on the Naval Estimates, the Air Force Estimates, and the Army Estimates, and we never get an answer. The present policy is just a panic policy of a large expenditure of money, but you cannot tell us exactly whom you are arming against, what is to be the effect of your armaments or whether they are the best armaments for the purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If you get an answer will you encourage recruiting?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not aware of the exact relevance of that interruption; but, certainly, if we come to an agreement as to exactly what are the forces required for collective security we should certainly not discourage the maintenance of the essential force in an efficient manner, and in all our experience as a Government I do not think we ever tried to do so. May I come to the next point in connection with the expenditure? The hon. and gallant Admiral to-night defended the laying down next year of the two new battleships. It may be argued in some instances that they are a replacement, but we know that, in effect, they will be an extension of the battleship units. The gallant Admiral shakes his head. Do not let us make any mistake. These large and expensive existing ships, several of which were described in the recent election campaign of the Prime Minister as obsolete, have had in the last year or two—or are having—spent on them sums of £1,500,000, £2,000,000,

£2,500,000. Those ships are not going to be scrapped because we are laying down new ships next year. That is evident when we examine the work they have done, and when we can see that over a long period they have averaged 50 days under steam in every one of those years.

Sir R. KEYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that these renovated, 20-year-old battleships will be efficient against the modern battleships with modern armaments being built by France and Germany and Italy?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am certain that what the gallant Admiral said at Malta about the British Fleet is true, and—

Sir R. KEYES: The two Italian battleships are not yet in commission. If those two modern Italian ships were in commission, they would be a formidable force and we should be obliged to have ships to answer them.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. and gallant Admiral going to tell me that the Italian ships will be superior to the "Rodney" and the "Nelson"?

Sir R. KEYES: Italy is not the only possible enemy. What about the North Sea?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Directly people are brought up against the facts they always want to switch off to another argument. If you take them up on one point they want to switch away. As compared with that of other battle fleets of the world, the British battleship category is superior—

Sir R. KEYES: So it ought to be.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the gallant Admiral is right. We have nothing to complain about. Now I come to the question of replacement. I say this is not replacement but expansion. We have a sub-committee sitting. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) that we were led to believe that that sub-committee, which was to report upon the battleship in relation to the development of the modern bomb, was to conduct an effective inquiry which might, to a very large extent, modify our programme in the capital ship class. We are now told that whatever may be the report of that committee, battleships will be built; that there may be a small


and perhaps unimportant modification in their characteristics, but certainly nothing vitally affecting the future of the battleship class. I regard the House of Commons as having been very largely misled as to the intentions of the Government on this battleship problem. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth is very much more in touch with the views of, and the policy proposed by, the Admiralty than is the ordinary Member of the House. Evidently, in his constant touch with Sea Lords and officers, and after his recent trip to the Fleet and his cruise in the Mediterranean —

Sir R. KEYES: That is only natural —

Mr. ALEXANDER: He knows much more what is going to be done, as well as what was done in his time, than the ordinary Member of the House. On the battleship question, the House has been badly misled, and what an hon. Member said in the Committee stage of the Estimates has come true—we have been asked to vote money this year amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds for ships to be laid down next year before we have had any information as to the characteristics of those ships. I object strongly to that, from the point of view of efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was right in putting the point with regard to proper information being given to the House about what is being done in equipment. On the last stage of the Naval Estimates I asked how many of the cruisers, battleships and destroyers were being fitted with the new anti-aircraft gun. The Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said it was not possible in the public interests that those—

Lord STANLEY: I said "advisable."

Mr. ALEXANDER: Not advisable, then, in the public interest, that this information should be given. What nonsense that is. There is an annual publication of the British Admiralty called "Fleets" which gives the list of the fleets known to be built, in building and projected, in this country and every other country. Up to the present, and until you begin to talk about that sacrosanct anti-aircraft gun, there is not a single characteristic of the armament of those ships that it not given clearly—the

number of guns, the calibre of the guns, whether they are ordinary guns or antiaircraft guns—all is set out year by year for the new and the projected ships.
Suddenly there is the panic at the General Election of 1935. The Prime Minister will speak on the wireless and put the wind up the electorate, if I may use the term, about the unpreparedness of the British Fleet against aircraft attacks. At the time I ventured to say a word or two about the fact that that was not true and ghat the British Fleet is very well prepared, although it may be still better prepared as you supply more guns. The hon. and gallant admiral said 14 months ago in this House—in March, 1935—during the Navy Estimates Debate, that we did adequately safeguard the naval ships against attack from the air. When we ask for some measure of confidence to be given to the civilian population of this country, instead of frightening them, as the Prime Minister tried to do, and that we should tell them that we have a firm defence in the naval sphere against aircraft, we are told that that is not in the public interest; but it is in the public interest to put fear into the hearts of the electorate on the eve of the Election. It is competent for the First Lord of the. Admiralty and for the Noble Lord to send advance information to foreign naval Powers as to the new features which we are going to give our Fleet, but it is quite wrong to tell the British House of Commons, which has to vote the money.

Lord STANLEY: May I say again that this is not a -unilateral action, because we receive advance information from them in return?

Mr. ALEXANDER: If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty thinks that we shall get a great deal of advantage from learning the new legend of some foreign ship or some new type of gun or other which is in preparation, he is being very optimistic indeed. The First Lord of the Admiralty ought to take us into reasonable confidence. I have never yet discovered that information of that kind is so extraordinarily valuable. The Parliamentary Secretary is not the only one with experience of the Admiralty; I hope he will admit that. I am weighing the national importance and value to the public of the respective


policies, and it does not help the Government even to get the taxpayers to pay cheerfully for armaments, to put fear into them rather than to tell them that you are technically prepared to meet any attack that might come upon them. I shall go on questioning, and I hope my hon. Friends will do so, too, for the information which the Government withheld from the electors and now seek to withhold from the House.
I want to say a word or two about the point on which I think the Admiralty have completely failed to meet us, which justifies more than ever the claim which we have made from this side of the House for a real inquiry and overhaul of Admiralty administration. We have been asking that each of the fighting Services should give a general undertaking to the Government that, in the enormous armament programme which is being undertaken, and which, in the three Services combined, will cost not much less than £400,000,000, they will honour their obligation not to have undue profits made out of the process. What is happening in regard to the Admiralty? On two or three occasions we have asked to be informed, and first of all the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Contract Department was very good and efficient and had certain methods of approach, and so on. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare I do not want to utter any criticisms of individuals in the Contract Department. I know that Department has very efficient and clever men, and I am not criticising them at all when I point out that in the next 12 months we are going to spend perhaps £100,000,000 in naval expenditure. Is it too much to ask that there should be an overhaul of the methods for preventing undue profit?
All that we have heard so far on this point would show only that the Contract Department were not being charged a higher rate of profit than is usual in that class of industry in the country for the time being, but that is not an effective safeguard for the taxpayer upon a rearmament expenditure of 2400,000,000. We ought to get a basis, and a check from costings, which are in relation to the needs of the nation and which would implement the words used the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, "Take the profit out of war". There would be a good deal less shouting for armaments in this House and in the

country to-day, if we would take the profit out of war.
So far from our case not being justified, it is clear from the Financial Secretary's statement to-day that he recognises that something has got to be done, and so he announces that there is to be a Naval Contracts Advisory Committee. I do not make any complaint about the Government beginning to make some effort, but I must confess that I am not impressed by their methods. They appoint a committee of four gentlemen, every one of whom, no doubt, in his own particular sphere, is a most estimable person, and I have not a word to say against them in that connection. There is Sir Malcolm Robertson, an ex-ambassador to the Argentine Republic, and a man who in the past has been a very excellent public servant. He is now, I think, Chairman of the Spillers-Carr combine. Then there is Mr. W. Fraser, C.B.E., whom I find from my investigations to be a director of the Anglo-Egyptian Oil Co., the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Shell-Mex, and numerous other oil companies, and I suppose, therefore, not entirely unconnected with pretty big suppliers of the Admiralty. The next name, if I have got the right one, I take to be that of Sir Norman Leslie, the shipbroker, who is engaged in the shipping business; and the one appointment out of the four that I would not criticise from the point of view of really checking profits in the Admiralty is that of Sir Nicholas Waterhouse, who is an accountant. That is the kind of guarantee that we are to be given in regard to effective checks on the profits to be made out of this new armaments programme.
But, while we use this case with regard to profits as a reason for an inquiry, it is not the only reason for an inquiry. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare, who himself had considerable experience, as Civil Lord, in dealing with all building purchases under Vote 10, was right when he said to-night that in his experience he found considerable overlapping, which, unless he was able to check it, resulted in unnecessary expenditure being incurred in that Department. I remember discussing on more than one occasion points of that kind with him, and supporting him in the action he took then. In the enormous development which is now taking place in works under Vote 10, we feel that


something ought to be done by way of co-ordination and general overhaul. In fact, I think it is true to say that, in spite of the statement of the Financial Secretary that the Esher Committee, which inquired into the War Office, had terms of reference which referred to the structure of the Admiralty, to-day we find that the Admiralty, easily the largest spending Department, has not for decades had an effective overhaul, and we have had quoted to us to-night by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton whole chunks of the May Report of 1931 indicating the need for inquiry into the various activities of the Board of Admiralty. We are entirely dissatisfied with the replies that we have received from the Parliamentary Secretary and from the Prime Minister, as to the need for inquiry into these matters.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) asked me to answer two specific questions. I think the principal one was whether we were in favour of war or no war with Japan where there was likely to be a breach of the Covenant. If the hon. Member had been here during the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard my general answer on the principle, but, with regard to the particular question which he asked me on the Manchukuo question, I would say that, if that question had been handled aright from the commencement in the diplomacy of this country—

Sir R. ROSS: Again the right hon. Gentleman refuses to answer questions.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the hon. Member want me to answer? I am quite willing not to answer if he does not want me to do so. I was saying that, if that matter had been properly handled from the beginning, and Japan had been told quite plainly at the commencement—as Mussolini ought to have been told at Stresa last April 12 months about Abyssinia—what the attitude of this country would be, there would never have been cause either for economic sanctions or perhaps stronger measures to implement economic sanctions. That is our case. It is the case on Japan and Manchukuo, and it is the case on Abyssinia and Italy.

Sir R. ROSS: I loth to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has given us the usual hypothesis that we expect

from him. I suppose that what he means —and I would like his assent or dissent to this proposition—that, what he would have done would have been to threaten and say that this country would make war in certain events. hoping that that bluff would carry him through.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member objects to my putting a hypothesis to him, but he wants me to give a very categorical answer to a hypothesis which he puts to me. He asks what we would have done in 1932 and 1933 about Japan and Manchukuo, but that would have depended entirely upon the action taken by the Government earlier. I am certain, however, that if the late Arthur Henderson had been Foreign Secretary we should never have had this situation. This Government, with its wibble-wobble in foreign policy, is shouting about support of the League, but gives no support to the League in the councils of the nations, and forces this country into the disgraceful position into which it has been forced, both with regard to Japan and Manchukuo and with regard to Italy and Abyssinia; and it will take a long time for this country to recover the prestige which it has lost through the mishandling of these situations.
The hon. Member also asked whether we on this side say that we should have 50 cruisers or 70 cruisers. We say exactly what we said in our appeal to the country at the election—that we will provide whatever necessary efficient forces are required for the maintenance of collective security. We had an agreement with the Board of Admiralty in 1929–30 that, in the circumstances of that time, 50 cruisers were sufficient. I might go back further, and say that, even at the time of the Washington Conference of 1921-22, a tentative agreement was arrived at that 50 cruisers were sufficient. But if the Government will demonstrate to us at what point they require expansion to meet present needs, we will consider it—I will not say more than that to-night in the light of our own pledge to the electorate. But we cannot get an answer from the Government at any time as to the basis upon which their actual programme is adumbrated. If the hon. Member can find the answer to that. I shall be very glad to go a little further into the matter.
There is, I think, only one other point to which I need refer, and that is the question whether or not we should be entitled to scrap the five "C" class cruisers—the point whether Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 should be implemented or not. I am amazed at the wooliness of the replies made from the Government bench on this question, both the impromptu reply by the Financial Secretary last time and the long and carefully prepared reply so carefully read by the Financial Secretary to-day. What is the common sense of the position? Let us look at it. We have the Naval Treaty of 1936, which limits this country to 50 cruisers and 339,000 tons in the cruiser category on 31st December, 1936. Also in that treaty we laid down that in 1935 we would have a further Naval Conference when we would decide what the further policy should be. We also said that if any other party than the high contracting parties of which there were only three —Japan, the United States and this country—did any building which would be likely to damage our national security beyond the position provided for in the London Treaty, we had the right to notify that Power and the other Powers to the Treaty that we should expand our naval equipment.
What is the position now? You have had your Naval Conference of 1935. You have, in fact, scrapped the whole of the limitation provisions of the 1930 treaty, because you are to be able to build what you like without giving notice. In the light of this the Government say first, "We find our national position in the world insecure in naval affairs so that we must ask the House to authorise a programme of 70 cruisers instead of 50, and we will agree that of the 70 cruisers 10 shall be over-age but we must, in order to keep faith under the general path of the London Naval Treaty, scrap five cruisers which are over-age." They ray it would cause grave misunderstanding with other Powers if we said it was because they were building more ships that we were going to keep these five old cruisers. But they are going to build 20. The real fact is that they are putting up all this woolly argument to try to hide from the country that they are going to build five unnecessary ships. They could keep five over and save a large part of the construction of five new ships and they are using, quite unwarrantably

and unnecessarily, the cover of the London, Naval Treaty, which has not been a handicap but a great help to this country in maintaining its naval position. That policy is completely unjustified and we are entitled to ask that, instead of saying you require in the next three or four years 20 new cruisers, you can do with 15 and you can keep these five instead of scrapping them.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence both laid extraordinary stress upon the impending danger and the element of time. Time, they said, was of the essence of the contract. Yet the Government, in spite of this proposed urgency of time, are going to leave us on 1st January, not with the 50 cruisers provided by the Labour Government but with 46, when they can have 51 if they like, and without the slightest difficulty in regard to giving notice under the treaty, and with the ultimate saving of a considerable sum of money in construction. I think I have said enough to show that the policy of the Government in this matter is as woolly now as it has been in other directions. If they really want to get the country united behind them let them show, first of all, that they are really out for peace. Let them show next that they are really out to support the system of collective security. Let them show next what are the minimum requirements agreed with other parties under a policy of collective security as being necessary for the maintenance of that policy. If they will come to the House on that basis they will get their Vote, but on this basis of panic, no plan, no efficiency, enormously raising expenditure at a time when nearly 2,000,000 of the population are living in poverty, it is a plan which we cannot and will not support.

9.1 p.m.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I think everyone will agree that we have had a profitable Debate, and I hope some of the issues have been clarified. Before I come to the speech that the right hon. Gentleman has just made I should like to answer one or two specific points that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) put. The first question was on Singapore. Perhaps it would be well if I went over the main story of Singapore. The scheme for establishing this base


first appeared in the Navy Estimates in 1923. It was stopped under the Government of the present Opposition in 1924. A revised plan was worked out in 1925 to enable the base to be used for docking and repair of ships in peace time. Then in 1929, again when the present Opposition were in power, they decided to slow down the work as far as possible. Again in 1933 the scheme was extended to include, among other items, provision for a boom defence depot and an increased amount for a naval armament depot. The present Supplementary Estimate is for about £1,500,000, with another £500,000 under Vote 8 for cranes and dockyard machinery, etc. It represents the difference between a dock in peace time and a full naval base in war time.
If the hon. Member would like to know one or two of the special points; provision is made for the construction of a torpedo depot, additional workshop and storage accommodation, the completion of a naval stores basin and the construction of a wharf and necessary dredging. It is hoped that the additional work will be provided by 1940. It has often been stated that the sole object of this base is to safeguard our Indian possessions to the West and the interests of the Empire in the East. It is no menace to any other Power and there is no reason why it should be, because it is as far away as we are from the United States.
The second point was the widening of No. 1 Dock at Gibraltar. I agree that these are large figures and it is absolutely right that a very complete and full explanation should be given to hon. Members before they vote. This dock, which is the largest at Gibraltar, will not take battleships or battle cruisers. That is a serious handicap to the efficiency of the Fleet, and recent events have confirmed the opinion which the Admiralty had already formed that such docking facilities were essential. There were two alternative schemes put up, one of which was a floating dock, which meant a great deal of dredging and was very much more expensive than the other. A great many of these items, as I intend to prove to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) are deficiency items, and I propose to define what we mean by "deficiency" before I sit down.
The other point was the dock at Devon-port. The whole point about that is that the largest dock a Devonport is at present the floating dock, and while you can accommodate ships of the "Queen Elizabeth" class, the "Royal Sovereign" class, you cannot accommodate battleships of the "Nelsou" and "Rodney" type, and in case of emergency, at present there may be very considerable congestion at Portsmouth. It is essential to see that there are equal facilities at Plymouth and at Portsmouth.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I wish the hon. Gentleman would answer the point as to whether it is contemplated enlarging the beam of battleships.

Mr. LINDSAY: The answer is definitely "No." The third point which the hon. Member for Aberdare raised was the question of Rosyth and the new training school, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) also mentioned it. I genuinely hope that the school is going to mean a new outlet and a very fine outlet for a good many boys in Scotland and the North of England. Why this expenditure" I can assure the House that this job will be done in a most efficient manner, but the training of a boy for the Navy is a very different matter from what it was 30 or 40 years ago at Portsmouth and Shotley. It is not a question of turning out a boy ready for the Navy in a few months. There is a whole series of requirements, scientific knowledge, signalling and all the rest of it to be acquired in equipping him for the Navy, apart from his being medically fit, and there is a very much higher medical standard required. By the establishment of this school, which will possibly contain some thousand boys, taking the artificers as well who go straight into the Navy, we shall have in Scotland a completely modern establishment—almost the only one—as Shotley is congested, while other buildings now being used for schools are old adapted buildings.
I, too, like the hon. Member for Aberdare, have been round the dockyards. I do not say that I have as wide a knowledge as that which he gained when he was in my office, hut I have been round to all the dockyards within reasonable reach. My experience is not his experience. If he can give me an example of extravagance or waste or of buildings lying empty, at Gibraltar, Portsmouth or


Devonport, I shall be very glad to have it. It is very easy to make a general attack, but it is much easier for me to answer a specific attack, and if he has any specific example I shall be very glad to discuss it with him.

Mr. G. HALL: If the hon. Gentleman will look up certain Minutes of the Admiralty while we were there he will get specific instances of points with which I have dealt, and I shall be very happy to discuss them with the Civil Lord.

Mr. LINDSAY: I have not seen them —and I hope that some of them will have been remedied since—but I shall be very glad, to look at these various points. I have been struck, as I have gone round, by the way these old yards, built 100 years ago, have been adapted for modern uses. I could quote, as I did on the last occasion when I addressed the House, three specific examples, but I will not weary the House again. On Vote 10 the total vote is something like £350,000. Everything can be clearly stated. There is no mystery about the figures. Something like £150,000 is for various kinds of storage. It is no use building ships unless you have docks large enough and in the right place for repairs. Hence the widening of these docks.

Mr. G. HALL: The total vote on Vote 10 this year was £2,800,000 and the £350,000 is additional.

Mr. LINDSAY: I am referring to the Supplementary Estimate we are discussing to-day. You must protect your ships against air and submarine attack. There is a very large expenditure for gunnery, signalling, wireless and a whole host of things, many of which barely existed in 1914. It is no use having a Fleet—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough has been very eloquent on this point to-night—unless it is efficient. It is not efficient if you have not adequate reserves of armaments, torpedoes and oil, and these things in a modern world have to be stored, and therefore a great many items are put down for storage, and they run into a very large sum of money. It is no use having an Empire if you are to expose it to obvious dangers. You cannot have a modern Fleet without a highly trained personnel, particularly to-day, and that

means Rosyth or something like it. Every item here has been carefully scrutinised. Hon. Members now realise in plain terms what we mean by making up deficiencies. The policy of the board, as far as this is concerned, must be 100 per cent. efficiency and adequate reserves.
I now come to one or two other speeches. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) raised the question of the Fleet Air Arm. I have my own personal views on this question, but I am going to read to the House what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has said:
The subjects which are being considered are those concerning the provision of personnel, periods of service and reserves. …I am not covering the large field which he traversed"—
referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—
but I am undertaking the inquiry in the form in which I propose" —
I would ask the House to note this—
with the complete concurrence of both the Services concerned. I think I am not overstating when I say that they have welcimed the method which I propose to pursue"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1936; col. 1395, Vol. 312.]
If there is a clear case for the existence of a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence it is this very thorny problem of the Fleet Air Arm.

Captain BALFOUR: I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has not tackled the main problem as to whether the Fleet Air Arm should be handed over to the Admiralty or not.

Mr. LINDSAY: I do not think that I can improve upon the very careful wording of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) made a general attack upon admirals and everything else. It is very hard to answer a speech like that. He made a demand for a roving commission. We think that it is very much better to have a specific commission on specific points. So far as other speeches were


concerned, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), because it seemed to me that he presented the only alternative policy to the policy of the Government. Apart from a number of speeches defending the view of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), the only other points which I have to answer are —the matter was clearly stated by my Noble Friend—the question of the scrapping of the five cruisers and the demand for an inquiry. We must get this thing into proportion. I have a few relative figures of the cost of practically equal ships in 1913 and to-day. A ship which in 1913 cost £320,000 costs to-day something like £1,209,000. That increase is due partly to labour charges, the price of materials and the greater elaboration of equipment.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Can the hon. Member give us the percentages?

Mr. LINDSAY: I should be glad to give them to my hon. Friend afterwards in detail, but not now.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I should like them across the Floor of the House.

Mr. LINDSAY: I am trying now to establish a general principle.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member ought to bring out the point that although a ship to-day is costing more, it is by far a better fighting machine than a similar ship in 1914.

Mr. LINDSAY: I am glad to have some support from my hon. Friend. A ship may have the same name, the same displacement, the same function and the same external shape as a ship in the pre-War Fleet, but it is an almost entirely different article and the cost is very widely separated. Therefore, when hon. Members say that these Estimates are running up to £80,000,000, they must bear these things in mind. They have also to bear in mind various things which did not exist in 1914. The Fleet Air Arm and the emergency in the Mediterranean did not exist in 1914. Various other things did not exist in 1914, for which considerable sums are provided in these Estimates.

Mr. MANDER: The League of Nations.

Mr. LINDSAY: The League of Nations did not exist in 1914. I shall come to the League of Nations before I finish. What is the position in regard to the Admiralty? Since 1918 we have had the Geddes Committee, the Weir Committee, the Hilton Committee and the May Committee, apart from the Select Committee on Estimates. The Admiralty have been living in an atmosphere of committees. The Esher Committee is no analogy, because that is for the whole organisation of Departments. What are the precise reforms that are desired? If it is a question of contracts, I do not think that, with the very careful costing system, with the criterion of the dockyards against private contracts, there is any enormous scope there. My Noble Friend announced to day the names of the committee that has been appointed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite fell foul of the names. They are well known and able business men, who are prepared to give their time. If lion. Members are asking for a committee on a different type of work, of course there would be a. different type of people appointed. These are men who have proved themselves to be able, if you like, to make profits. Therefore, they are suitable for inquiring into the question of profits. There is nothing to conceal.
Let me say a few words on the question which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and that is, the "C" class cruisers. My Noble Friend explained as fully and accurately as possible what is the position. The right hon. Member for Epping and the right hon. Member opposite challenged the interpretation which has been put on the treaty. They are entitled to do that, but they must admit that there is an enormous amount to be said on our side. The right hon. Member for Epping asked what the manager of a great private business would feel if he came down to his business and found that an important part of his stock had to be scrapped. That was a poor analogy. There is no comparison between a private business and the complication of Government business, with the effect of public opinion and the concern of other countries. In answer to his specific question, I may say that there is no reason to suppose that Japan will break treaties. Moreover, we shall


be in touch with her regarding her intentions as to the exact manner in which she will fulfill her obligations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Why are you so tender about 31st December and not about 1st January? On 31st December you say "We must have this tonnage scrapped, because we must do it under the treaty," but on the 1st January you propose to build 24 more of these ships.

Mr. LINDSAY: Simply and solely because of the fact that a treaty, for which I have no responsibility, was made, and we are a very old-fashioned country and like to keep our treaties. I could quote a speech of the right hon. Member for Epping, which he made six years ago, in which he used precisely the same words in reply to the right hon. Member opposite about the scrapping of the five "Iron Dukes," as were used to-day about the scrapping of the cruisers. He said "Why scrap them when you are going to build some more. Is this economy?" You cannot manipulate treaties in that way. Treaties may be good or bad, but that is another question. I have gone into this matter as carefully as I could, and I would emphasise the very strict wording of the 1930 Treaty, which says: "National security as affected by new construction." The right hon. Member for Epping cannot have it both ways. There is a special Clause dealing with destroyers, but there is no special Clause dealing with cruisers. The whole point is new construction. The Government have taken the only line they could take. It may be that cruisers will not be scrapped on either side, but that is not our responsibility.
I have tried to answer as faithfully as I can a large number of questions. Let me say, in conclusion, that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) will go on talking in general terms about collective security. I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite why we need 70 cruisers. In answer I would quote the words of the right hon. Member for Epping: "The

purpose of the Navy is to assure the arrival of our daily bread." It is the opinion of the Government and of the Board of Admiralty that a very large proportion of these Estimates is for making up deficiencies while another portion is for expansion. They are part of the defence programme, which has been based on months of careful study.

The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton seemed to think that these things were thrown together for the House this year. They have been prepared very carefully. They aim to make the British Navy 100 per cent. efficient equipped with men, material and reserves. No Liberal and no Labour Member can logically vote against them. The only people who could logically vote against them would be those who support the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton). I do not believe that in naval affairs we have ever come near to collective security. It is no good confusing treaties for the limitation of armaments with collective security. That is a misuse of language—that is why I rejoiced in the cut-and-thrust of Debate. We must clothe collective security with reality. Hon. Member must have the courage of their convictions to-night and put party prejudice behind them. If they do that they will vote for these Estimates, which I commend to the House.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is it true that the Fleet has only half an hour's reserve of ammunition in the Mediterranean?

Mr. LINDSAY: I did not specifically refer to the vague rumours mentioned by the right hon. Member and others. It is wrong for hon. Members to take vague rumours from the newspapers and repeat them in this House.

Question put, "That £10,300,000 stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 85.

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
[9.27p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Bull, B. B.


Assheton, R.
Bernays, R. H.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Blindell, Sir J.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bossom, A. C.
Cary, R. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)




Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W Allen (Derby)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rickards. G. W. (Skipton)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rowlands, G.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salmon, sir I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandys, E. D.


Donner, P. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Latham. Sir p.
Savery, Servington


Drewe. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Scott, Lord William


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, H. R.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lennox. Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Eastwood, J. F.
Levy, T.
Simmonds, O. E.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lewis, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.
Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Emery, J. F.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smithers. Sir W.


Entwistle, C. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lyons, A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Findlay, Sir E.
Mabane, W. (Hudderafleld)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Furness, S. N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stourton Major Hon. J. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Manningham-Buller. Sir M
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Grimston, R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mayhaw, Lt.-Col. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Warrender, Sir V.


Guy, J. C. M.
Moore, Lleut.-Col. T. C. R.
Waterhduse, Captain C.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Munro, P.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Nail, Sir J.
Wells, S. R.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Harvey, G,
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut, -Colonel G.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.



Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holdsworth, H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Commander Southby and


Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Dr. Morris Jones.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson. W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt. D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardle, G. D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson. J.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rowson, G,


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Silkin. L.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
John. W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. w.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Chater. D.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Strauss G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, F.
Thurtle E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watson. W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Oliver, G. H.



Garro-Jones, G. M.
Parker, H. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION BILL.

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th May.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of common council to combine with other local authorities.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.39 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I am sure the Under-Secretary will wish to give some explanation why it is necessary that the Common Council of the City of London should participate in the provision of aerodromes for people under their jurisdiction. I should be the last to discourage interest in aviation on the part of any local authority, but I have observed in the Press that there is a large body of opposition to the ratepayers' money in the City of London being used for this purpose. I hold no brief for the ratepayers of the City of London, but I should be interested to know why it is necessary to include the Common Council of the Corporation of the City of London in the Bill at all.

9.40 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Town councils and municipal boroughs arc entitled to make provision for the establishment of aerodromes in their areas, and it would seem to be illogical that the Common Council of the City of London should be debarred from entering into arrangements with other local authorities, like the London County Council, for the establishment of aerodromes.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Is it not possible for the London County Council to make the necessary provision? There will be a multitude of local authorities and none will have the particular responsibility of providing these facilities. That will not mean effective organisation. Did the Common Council of the City of London express a wish to be included?

Sir P. SASSOON: They expressed a desire to be able to join with the London County Council in establishing aerodromes, and I think they are meditating

establishing an aerodrome in Essex. There is no reason why the Common Council of the City of London should be debarred from facilities which are afforded to every other local authority.

CLAUSE 12.—(Limitation of liability for certain damage caused by aircraft)

9.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, after "is," to insert "without his actual fault or privity."
The Committee, I am sure, on general principles will always welcome an Amendment which effects in six words what previously has been effected in about 60 words. The Amendment affects in more appropriate words what was intended by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2), and there is an Amendment later to delete these two paragraphs. The purpose of the Clause is to allow in certain circumstances liability to be limited. It is intended that the limitation shall not apply if the person responsible is actually at fault himself in causing or being privy to the damage. That limitation of liability already exists in the Merchant Shipping Act where the limitation of liability which is proposed here refers to cases where damage occurs without the actual fault or privity of the persons concerned. By putting in these words, which already exist in the Statute, we are carrying out a principle of limitation which has already been in operation for a number of years. By using these words instead of the words which were originally in the Bill we are following precedent. I can assure the Committee that these words, which already have had legal interpretation, carry out the general intention better than the words which were originally in paragraphs (a) and (b)

9.44 p. m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I do not think the Attorney-General has fully realised the difficulties to which this Amendment will give rise in practical operation. It may be that there is a precedent in the Merchant Shipping Act but in applying them to accident cases there is always an interminable controversy as to whether the accident was due to a defect in the mechanism of the machine or to


the fallible human factor. We have committees of inquiry set up by the Air Ministry every time a machine crashes, and it is very difficult to bring home to a pilot whether it is his fault or not, though I notice that if he has been killed by the accident, it is nearly always put down to an error of judgment on his part and seldom, if ever, to a defect in the machine.
Let me give two or three examples. There is, first of all, the operation of landing, which is the one in which the most numerous minor accidents occur. A mistake of 10 feet in estimating distance from the ground may make all the difference and involve a crash causing serious damage. Are there to be attempts made to bring it home to the pilot that his judgment was not so accurate and precise as to absolve him from responsibility under this Clause? There are even more difficult examples. Take the case of a pilot who runs out of petrol, an almost daily occurrence in flying over this country, and as a result he has to make a forced landing, and crashes. He may say he thought the capacity for consumption of his aeroplane was slightly less than it turned out to be. Consumption varies according to conditions, strength of wind, and so on. Innumerable variable factors will make it impossible to tell whether in a given case the pilot has exercised due care or not.
Here is another example: Suppose a pilot is taking off on the journey from, say, Manchester to London, and allows himself an hour and a-half, as in normal circumstances he would take to make that journey, and he finds that, owing to an evening breeze at 20 miles an hour that arises, he is unable to make his destination before dark, and the machine crashes. Is that due to his fault? Suppose he takes off without a map and as a result loses his way and has a, forced landing. I could go on reciting these potential cases of doubt as to whether a given accident has occurred through the fault or privity of the pilot all night, and you can be sure that a body of case law will take 25 years to build up before this Clause conveys to pilots and third parties their relative positions in the eyes of the law. I really ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give this matter further consideration. When it comes to a discussion of the Clause

standing part, we shall have something to say about the absolutely farcical principle which governs the Clause, under which the damage is claimed will depend on the size of the instrument which has caused that damage and not upon the amount of the damaga done. I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman, with the picture which I have endeavoured to portray to him, to give some further consideration before he places upon the Statute Book a provision which will give endless difficulties to the courts and cause endless confusion in the minds of the pilots, the operating companies, and the public who may seek to make claims under the Clause.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: May I say one word in answer to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones)? He seems to confuse two essentially different matters—questions of law and questions of fact. The construction of the phrase "without his actual fault or privity" is not really a matter of great difficulty, because it must depend on individual cases, on the facts which constant.; each case, and it always remains a question of fact for the tribunal deciding the facts. I suggest that, when we have a phrase which has been found not difficult of construction, in so far as it has needed construction, for some 42 years under the Merchant Shipping Act, and which has been determinable by tribunals dealing with facts, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has provided the best means of meeting the difficulties that may be involved.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General to explain the position. I understand that the words which it is proposed to insert are practically the same in effect as those which are to be deleted. I am not acquainted with the legal interpretation of these terms, but I should have imagined that the words which he proposes to insert, which are "without his actual fault or privity," were something very different from the words "wilful misconduct," which is what they are in the original Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) gave a number of examples which might quite well be construed as actual


faults, but surely none of them could be called wilful misconduct. A man who runs out of petrol unexpectedly could not be called guilty of wilful misconduct, but it might be called an actual fault. I would like the Attorney-General to give us the benefit of his legal knowledge on this subject. It may be true that these words have been construed in the previous Act, but does he tell us that they have been construed as precisely similar to the words "wilful misconduct"? I should be very surprised if that were so.

9.52 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Their meaning is, in my opinion, substantially the same. The basic idea at the bottom of this Section in the Merchant Shipping Act is this, that you prima facie limit a man's liability; you say he cannot lose the advantage of that limitation merely from negligence, but that he shall lose the advantage of that limitation if there is something more than mere negligence. It may be that the words "wilful misconduct" imply a slightly greater degree of culpability than the words "actual fault" The words in the convention were "gross negligence and wilful misconduct" We have been seeking in this Clause to get a form of words under which a man will not lose the advantage of the limitation of liability by what we may describe as mere negligence, but he will be called upon to show that what has happened has happened without his actual fault. Those are words which have been in the Merchant Shipping Act for a large number of years, and I think it is the most satisfactory form of words that could be inserted here.

Mr. MONTAGUE: We do not propose to force this Amendment to a Division, but we object to the Clause as a whole, and we shall express our views on it as a whole.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the working of this particular idea in the Merchant Shipping Act has been satisfactory, because I understand it is precisely the difficulty which causes a large number of men from the crews of ships to be brought to the court to swear as to the facts and to prove how people who have seen the same incident at the same time can form contrary ideas as to

all the facts of the case. I should have thought that the last thing one wanted, in view of the comments that the judges continually make on this particular point, was to re-enact it in the Air Navigation Bill. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, has chosen a most unfortunate analogy.

Amendment agreed to.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, in page 11, line 2, to leave out "persons or."
We are discussing in this Clause a very serious question, and I have put down two Amendments to raise the question whether a person's liability should be limited to loss or damage to persons. In the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air used the following words:
I recognise, of course, that the ideal state of affairs would be that third parties on the ground should be indemnified against all possible loss."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1936 col. 1709, Vol. 310.]
The Under-Secretary then went on to explain that the premiums would be so expensive as to hinder the development of aviation. The point I wish to make is that this Clause, if I understand it rightly—and as I am not a lawyer, I am not certain that I do understand it rightly—provides that in the case of certain accidents, the liability is not only limited as to property but as to persons. If a glider, for instance, came down on a crowd and 10 people lost their lives, the total liability would be limited to £1,000, which means that the dependants who lost their breadwinners would get £100 each. I think that is a scandalous proposition. I think the limitation of the liability so far as accidents to persons are concerned is not what it ought to be. In the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary referred to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and said that there was some similarity between the provisions of that Act and those of this Act. I wish the Attorney-General would make that clear. So far as I understand it, there was in the Road Traffic Act no limitation of liability if a motorist killed a third party. I think that in that case the man retained his common law rights, and my contention is that under this Bill he loses his common law rights by this particular provision.
It seems a peculiar thing to me that if an individual in the State is called upon to contribute to a subsidy and one of his children is killed in an accident caused by the person who receives the subsidy, the person who causes the accident gets an absolute limitation of his liability. I want some consideration to be given to this question. I do not know whether the Merchant Shipping Act applies both to property and to persons. There may be some argument on the grounds that the premiums would be too expensive if there was not a limitation as to property, but my opinion is that there can be no justification for not giving adequate protection to persons on the ground. When I mentioned this matter in the Second Reading Debate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) gave certain figures as to the cost of insurance, and I take it those figures were correct. In my speech on that occasion, I asked a question as to what would be the added cost if there were no limitation of liability, and the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State said that he would give a reply. He neither gave a reply on that evening nor on the subsequent occasion when the Air Navigation Bill was discussed. I would ask hon. Members not to allow their enthusiasm for civil aviation so to run away with them that they deny the ordinary citizens of the country adequate protection if an accident should happen to them.

10.3 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Amendment raises, so far as persons are concerned, the general principle of the limitation of liability. I would like, in the first place, to have your assistance, Captain Bourne, on a point of Order. I would like to ask whether, if we discuss on this Amendment the question which it raises as to the general principle of the limitation of liability, that discussion could be taken on this Amendment so that we need not have it again on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I took this Amendment as being purely concerned with the question of the liability of the person. The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) appears to me

to raise the whole question of the policy underlying the limitation of the damage. I thought we would take the general discussion on that Amendment, and having had it, not repeat it again on the Question, "That the Clause, stand part of the Bill."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That settles the point of Order, but it will be necessary for me to some extent in dealing with this Amendment to refer to certain general questions which apply to the limitation of the liability both with regard to persons and property. The Committee will no doubt be ready to excuse me for repeating my: elf when we consider the next Amendment. The question of and the justification for the limitation of liability must be considered in. relation to the other principle of the Bill, namely, compulsory insurance. Under the common law, there is what may be a very drastic limitation of liability. You cannot get blood out of stones, and the defendant cannot pay more that he has got. The Bill proceeds on the two complementary principles, first imposing compulsory insurance and then saying that the liability which; he insurer may be called upon to meet shall be limited according to the provisions of the Clause. It is true that there might be cases of very extensive damage done by a very rich individual or company, in which, under the common law, greater sums might be recoverable than the maximum stated here. On the other hand, there might be many more eases in which, in the absence of a compulsory insurance provision, very grew; damage might be done by a person of limited means and in which the people injured might get nothing. The Gorell Committee considered this matter carefully and paragraph 79 of their report states:
We think it would definitely be to the interest of the third party to have the certainty of recovering a reasonable sum.
That applies not only to personal injury but to damage to property. Representatives of a large number of nations assembled at Rome also considered this question and decided that limitation of liability, in respect of both personal injury and damage to property, was a right proper and reasonable provision to introduce if you were at the same time introducing compulsory insurance. As to the argument that in other connections there is no such limitation of liability the


answer surely is that a single airman might in an accident do almost incalculable damage. [An HON. MEMBER: "The insurance company ought to pay !"] The insurance company, no doubt, ought to pay if they have received a proper premium, a premium which would cover in certain cases an almost unlimited risk. Imagine, for instance, an aeroplane coming down on a big crowd at a cup tie or on some place where masses of human beings are gathered together. It might even descend on this House. The damage done in such cases might be very extensive. In dealing with this Amendment I am bound to refer to the general principle because the general principle is inevitably raised by an Amendment which seeks to strike it out of the Bill, in so far as personal injury is concerned, but hon. Members will notice that all the examples I have taken are in relation to the question of personal injury. The position seems to be this, that if you have not compulsory insurance in these cases, there is the possibility of an injured person not being able to get anything, whereas, if you have compulsory insurance and a limitation of liability, there is available, within those limits, a substantial sum. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head and £5,000 may not represent a substantial sum to him but—

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It is £1,000.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is more than many defendants in accident cases possess to-day. Reference has been made to the question of whether or not it would be practicable to get insurance at reasonable rates if you had unlimited

liability. Inquiries which we have made show, and I think common sense points to the conclusion, that you would not be able to get insurances at a reasonable rate if you had the possibility of unlimited liability in cases of this kind where the damage done by aircraft might run into great sums. It is a question, of course, like many other questions, on which arguments have been produced on both sides. But I would again emphasise that this point has been considered by the representatives of many nations as well as by the Gorell Committee and those bodies, having weighed all the arguments for and against, have decided that the two principles on which the Bill proceeds should be taken together.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am very disappointed with the reply of the Attorney-General. I cannot believe that, with a risk which would be spread over a tremendous number of journeys and with the rarity of accidents, the premium would be such as to have a serious effect upon the companies. I am also dissatisfied with the reply from this point of view—that even if the premium were large, that is no reason why a poor person should have to bear the burden of the huge loss which such an accident might entail, with, possibly, tremendous disadvantages to himself and his family. I am prepared to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'persons or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 87.

Division No. 213.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Colman, N. C. D.
Furness, S. N.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Assheton, R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Goidle, N. B.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Courtaufd, Major J. S.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bainlel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Blindell, Sir J.
Cuiverwell, C. T.
Grimston, R. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Donner, P. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Drake)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Drewe, C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bull, B. B.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Guy, J. C. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Harvey, G.


Cary, R. A.
Emery, J. F.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Entwistle, C. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Channon, H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon J. W. (Ripon)




Holmes, J. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moore, Lieut, Col. T. C. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hunter, T.
Munro, P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Nall, Sir J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Joel. D. J. B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Southby. Comdr. A. R. J.


Keeling, E. H.
Penny, Sir G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, E. A (Southwark, N.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Petherick, M.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


Latham, Sir P.
Radford, E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leckie, J. A.
Rankin, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Levy, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tanker. Sir R. L.


Lewis. O.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tate, Mavis C.


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lloyd, G. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Titchfleld, Marquess of


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell. Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Lyons, A. M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rowlands, G.
Warrender, Sir V.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Macdonald, Capt, P. (Isle of Wight)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


McEwen, Capt, J. H. F.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


McKie, J. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Magnay, T.
Savery, Servington
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Scott, Lord William



Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, H. J. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddi'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Potts, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Groves, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, D J. K.


Bellenger, F.
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson. J.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rowson. G


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Holdsworth H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'nle-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly. W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. lion. T.
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Dagger, G.
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker. J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Windsor. W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Messer. F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.



Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
TELLER FOR THE NOES.—


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Mander.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, to leave out from "aggregate," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert "twenty-five thousand pounds."
This Amendment raises the principal issue of the Clause, and the important principle of limited and compulsory insurance. According to the Clause, in the case of an aircraft which is an airship the limit of the liability which has to be insured against is £25,000, in the case of

a balloon £5,000, in the case of a glider £1,000, and in any Other case
a number of pounds sterling equal to the number of pounds a -avoirdupois constituting the weight of the aircraft fully loaded.
I have no hesitation in saying that that scheme of compulsory insurance for aircraft cannot be defended upon any logical principle, as I think the majority of hon. Members will agree. The defence for putting in into the Bill is two-fold. First, that it implements the Rome Convention, and, secondly, that there must be some


way found of dealing with compulsory insurance and that there is no more reasonable alternative. I think there is a reasonable alternative, and perhaps more than one. One way would be to enforce compulsory insurance up to any limit you like for any class of aircraft without making that the limit of the claim on the part of any persons who are either injured personally or through the destruction of their property. There is no reason why a Common Law claim for damages should not still exist and yet compulsory insurance be instituted up to various levels. We on this side take the line that there is no real, tangible case for limiting liability in this way. We have aircraft of various kinds capable of causing unlimited damage, or damage which cannot be limited in any term of words. Tremendous damage can be caused by a small aeroplane, as also by a large aeroplane. That is why we say that there is no logical case for governing the amount of insurance, or of recompense to a person injured, by such an arrangement as pounds avoirdupois compared with pounds in money.
With a new development of transport which is potentially so dangerous, it is incumbent upon us to look at the question from the point of view of people who might be injured or lose their lives, or in relation to the amount of destruction of property that might occur, in the case of a bad accident, and we should take that as our fundamental consideration. On the question of what charges might be made by insurance companies, I agree with other speakers that there is no reason even to limit insurance, and if you limit it, certainly not to make the limitation in certain cases as low as it is made in the Clause. The Amendment that I am moving proposes to substitute £25,000. As we have reached this stage of the Bill, we would accept that limitation, which means compulsory insurance up to that amount, and a limitation of the protection, as it were, against any further action on the part of persons injured. We want to cut out the lower figure.
When the Attorney-General said that unlimited insurance would imply and call for an unreasonable and prohibitive premium, he should have told us what his own knowledge was upon that subject. I have found it exceedingly difficult to

discover any insurance company who will make a standard proposal with regard to unlimited insurance. Any particular case might be considered upon its merits, but I do not know any insurance company which has a particular standard for unlimited insurance. We are not proposing an insurance for unlimited liability, but the high level of £25,000. We should consider the Clause and the Amendment upon the basis of what can be done with a limit as high as that, or something approximating to that.
I find it impossible to insure a Gipsy Moth aeroplane through Lloyd's. The Gipsy Moth has been called the poor man's aeroplane. I am not sure about the meaning of that term; it is, of course, a comparative one. A small aeroplane of that kind can do as much damage as a Continental liner. A limit of £5,000for third-party risks would require a. premium of £12 l0s. a year, for one accident. It does not cover a series of accidents in the course of the year. For a limit of £10,000, the premium would be £17 10s. and for £20,000, £25; and that is the highest figure I have in these estimates. The extra £5,000 would probably bring the figure to about £28 per year.

Major HILLS: May I interrupt the hon. Member to ask him where those figures come from?

Mr. M0NTAGUE: They come indirectly through Lloyd's The hon. Member knows that you do not get estimates of that kind direct from Lloyd's and that they refer you to a certain company. I have seen the references to those other figures. I do not need to go any further than that. I suggest that the kind of insurance we are proposing would cost, for a small type of aeroplane, about £27 or £28 in the course of a year. The owner of a Gypsy Moth aeroplane would to-day,. I imagine, insure voluntarily for £5,000. He would pay £12 10s. now for his insurance; and, in order fully to cover£and everyone should realise the necessity for covering£third-party risks, he would have to pay an additional £12 or £13 in the course of a year; so that all this talk about interfering with the encouragement of civil aviation and penalising the small private owner is really of very little consequence. If people want to fly, we ought to begin to consider the circumstances of the present state of aeronautical develop-


ment, and we ought to consider the interests of the public first. No one is more concerned with the development of civil flying than I am. I enjoy flying very much, and should like to be a pilot myself, but perhaps I am too old now to begin. I am sure, however, that if I felt that I was justified in incurring the expense of a small aeroplane, and the cost of its upkeep and use, I should not boggle at an additional £12 or £13 a year in order to carry out a reasonable insurance, so that no one to whom I might cause damage to life or property would stand in danger of being let down. For these reasons, which, I think, are substantial and adequate, I move this Amendment.

10.32 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: Let me hasten to tell the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that he is not at all too old to learn to fly, and, if it is any compensation to him, I should be delighted to teach him free, gratis and for nothing, and without any form of insurance being necessary either for him or myself.
I want to take up the point he made that there was no case for the limiting of liability by the procedure of avoirdupois weight in relation to the amount of compensation. The Gorell Committee considered this point for a very long time. It is hard to defend in a few moments a point which we considered for a long period of weeks, but the principle that, generally speaking, the bigger the aeroplane the more damage it is liable to do, was, broadly speaking, the principle on which we had to work. On these committees one has to work on some sort of principle. It is not always easy to find a principle, but, having found one, it is better to stick to it. I do not think it is illogical to say that it would be an exceptional circumstance for a Moth to crash in a city, burst a 40-gallon tank of petrol and set fire to a whole town. That is as unlikely to happen as the bursting of the petrol tank of a car and setting fire to a whole town. Generally speaking, you must proceed on the principle that, if a big aeroplane crashes, it is liable to do much more damage than a small one. That is, broadly speaking, the principle on which we proceeded, and it is one which I personally am willing to stand by.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Charles, said that on this Amendment there might be a general discussion of the principles of limitation of liability, and I want to put to the Attorney-General this problem We have not heard yet whether this country is going to ratify the Rome Convention or not, and I am going to proceed with my argument on the basis that I do not know. There is an 'aeroplane flying over the hon. and learned Gentleman's house. Unfortunately, it crashes next door to his house. Firstly, it is a British aeroplane. Under this Bill, under the particular weight, the maximum compensation granted would be £5,000. The second case is that the aeroplane that crashes is a foreign one owned by a national of a country which has ratified the Rome Convention.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think this had better be discussed on Clause 18.

Captain BALFOUR: I am only discussing it because your predecessor, Sir, said that we could have a general discussion on this Clause as to the limiting of liability.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It looks to me as though Clause 18 deals with the Rome Convention.

Captain BALFOUR: I am not dealing with the question whether or not we should ratify the Rome Convention. Suppose that the aeroplane belongs to a national of a country which had ratified the Rome Convention, the compensation would be £7,000, provided the franc had not appreciated. If the franc had appreciated by 50 per cent. it might be only £3,500. Suppose a third case of an aeroplane belonging to a, foreign national of a country which has not ratified the Rome Convention, there would be no compensation at all for the British national whose house was damaged and whose family might be seriously injured. He might be able to have recourse to the courts but, if the man had no particular assets in this country, there might be grave difficulty in recovering any damages at all.
I want to know whether between now and Report the Attorney-General will consider introducing some provisions whereby the pilot of an aeroplane making


a journey within these islands should be obliged to have third party cover in order to protect British nationals and put them on the same basis as if their houses are crashed by a British aeroplane. I trust that he will be able either to destroy my argument entirely, with which I shall be content if my premises are wrong, or, if they are admitted, that he will give some assurance that British nationals are protected against foreign visitors in the same way as they would be against accidents caused by British nationals.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I should apologise for intruding in a discussion which has so far been carried on by experts except that, when I glanced at the Clause, I realised that it dealt with a subject upon which experts ought to be silent and laymen ought to speak, because it has evidently been drafted by those who are more concerned about stimulating flying than about protecting the, civil population. It is to my mind a disaster that a limitation upon insurance should be imposed in a Bill brought in by the Air Minister, because he is the last person to look upon this matter with a judicial mind. To a specialist there is nothing like leather, and he is merely concerned about the flying part of it and is not in the least concerned, as far as I can see, about the protection that should be afforded to the civil population. If hon. Members who are not immediately connected with flying will have a look at the language of the Clause, I am sure that they will be alarmed by it. I listened to the Attorney-General very carefully, and his argument appeared to be that because this new service was likely to kill more people than any other service, the people ought to have less protection against it than against any other service. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head. Or is the argument that the premium would be so high as to be a deterrent to flying if there was unlimited liability on the part of the flyer? Is not the argument that the premiums would be high because the accidents would be many If the number of accidents fell, the premiums would fall also.

Mr. SIMMONDS: May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman on this matter? Is it not the fact that the reason why at the moment the premiums are high is that

there are so few risks of this nature to take on? When you get an infinite amount of business, as you do with the motor-car, the risk will go down, but now that there are so few aircraft the risks are proportionately high.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his interruption used language which was unjustified by what he said afterwards. He has not enlightened me at all, and I am sure that he has not enlightened the Committee. What actually happens is that there is a higher proportion of accidents compared with the number of vehicles employed than. there is in most other industries. The hon. Member will agree that if the number of accidents fell the premiums would fall. It is assumed by the insurance company that when there is a disproportionate number of accidents, they must charge a higher premium. We have the strange argument put forward that the more the public is exposed to risk the less protection it is to have. That is a fantastic proposition, to which we cannot assent at all.
The Merchant Shipping Act has been quoted in justification of the language in this Clause. I am not a lawyer, and I am, therefore, subject to being put right, but I understand that the accidents which occur on the sea are very largely due to collisions. When people go to sea they go with the full knowledge of the risks they incur. There is in the Merchant Shipping Act a limitation of compensation liability in proportion to the tonnage of the ship, in exactly the same way as is suggested in this Clause. A poor man walking on the earth can avoid accident only by getting off the earth. You can avoid an accident at sea by not going on to the ship. The man who goes on to a ship is like the man who goes in an aeroplane. He does it with the full knowledge of the risk he runs, but the poor, innocent child running on the earth, or the poor peasant applying himself to his obscure labouring work, or the poor artisan in the town, completely unaware of the peril overhead, is wholly exposed to it, without any compensation, or with very small compensation, and without being a party at all to the risk he runs. It is wholly unjustified to import into this novel service the language found proper for the merchant shipping of the world.
These are merely passing reflections which occur to a non-specialist in the


matter, but it is a fantastic proposition to say that, if I were injured by a big man, I should be likely to get more compensation than if I were injured by a little man. If this sort of thing were introduced into the motor-car world, and if I had two legs knocked off by an Austin Seven car, I should have less compensation than if I had one leg knocked off by a Rolls-Royce car. That is exactly the principle contained in this Clause. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) is an aviator who thinks that nothing in the world is finer than aviation. He looks upon this matter entirely from the point of view of the man in the air. His remarks will be within the memory of the Committee. He talked about tonnage, and spoke as if that was the primary consideration. The primary consideration is the poor chap who is going to be hit. What he is concerned about is not tonnage but the damage that is done to him. The Committee is supposed to be framing laws to protect the ordinary civilian, the passenger on the streets, from accidents from the air.
This is not a party matter. It is a matter in which every hon. Member is concerned, and I would ask the Government to reconsider it. It is a very serious matter. I believe that there are ways out of the difficulty which the Government have not sought. If I were to suggest them now the Debate might be taken off its main line. Some of us, however, would be happy to make those suggestions to the Attorney-General. The country as a whole would be deeply alarmed if it was thought that vehicles of all kinds were to be encouraged to fly over their innocent and unsuspecting heads and that if the vehicles fall upon them their claims will be limited in this way. We ought not to pass this virgin legislation—this is the first Bill practically regulating traffic in the air—with out asking ourselves what the effects will be. I do not want to see flying limited or deterred in any way, but deterrents will be put in the way if thousands or millions of people are to be exposed to injury without any adequate protection from the law.

10.49 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No one can make the slightest complaint of the manner and tone in which the hon. Mem-

ber for West Islington (Mr. Montague) moved his Amendment. It clearly is a point of importance and difficulty and one on which different views can quite properly be taken by reasonable people. I have sometimes been a little astonished at what appears to me to be the over-great admiration which hon. Members opposite display for international conventions. It is very interesting to find that on this matter they are repudiating a principle which has been accepted after great discussions by two international conventions. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Rome Convention of 1933, came to the conclusion that this limitation of liability was justifiable, and the Gorell Committee, after hearing arguments on both sides, again came to the conclusion that, paying due regard to the interests of third parties on the one hand and of aviation on the other, this was a proper case for the limitation of liability.
The Amendment is not one which would abolish that principle. It would in fact put in an arbitrary sum of £25,000 for all classes of aeroplanes. This was considered very carefully by the Colwyn Committee, and they came to the conclusion that this was a sound principle. The Amendment is directed less against the principle of limitation than against the scaling down of liability according to the size of the aeroplane. Broadly speaking, the smaller the aeroplane the less likelihood there is of the damage running into astronomical figures. There is also the fact that to many flyers of small aeroplanes the difference between a premium of 10s. and £25 is a substantial item in the general costs of running his machine, and incidentally making his contribution towards the development of civil aviation.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the case that it is not a question of measuring the damage but of measuring the cause of the damage? If it is a, certain size the damage must be so much limited; if it is another size, another limitation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I do not follow. I think the point is clear that the smaller the aeroplane the more you can limit your damage. The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked me three questions. He asked me whether we are prepared to ratify the Rome Convention.


That point clearly arises under Clause 18, but I shall not be trespassing on the Rules of Order if I say that substantially the Clauses in this Bill are carrying into effect the main principles of the Rome Convention. My hon. Friend assumed that my house was damaged by three different aeroplanes, and he pointed out the difference between the somewhat large liability that could be reached under this Bill and under the Rome Convention. The hon. and gallant Member also asked what would be the position of a foreign aeroplane coming here from a country which had not ratified the Rome Convention. I would refer him to paragraph (8) in the Second Schedule to the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations
for prescribing that the provisions of Part III of this Act which relate to insurance, securities and deposits in respect of third party risks shall, in relation to any such class of aircraft registered outside the United Kingdom as may be specified in the regulations, have effect subject to such modifications, adaptations and exceptions as may be so specified.
There is, therefore, power in proper cases to see that aeroplanes which come here from the country which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind shall insure themselves, so that if they do damage to our nationals there will be an effective policy of insurance in order that the person injured may recover damages.

Captain BALFOUR: That is a conditional power. Can we have an assurance that the Government will put this conditional power into execution in order to give this protection?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have answered the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put to me, and I will see that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to this matter. It is the intention to use this power in order to give proper protection in the case of foreign aeroplanes.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask a question on this matter of insurance? I am rather convinced by the arguments of the Attorney-General, and I realise the difficulties. Take a house like Knole, which is on the route from France. Suppose. a glider crashes through the roof of the house and destroys one or two valuable pictures. The sum of £1,000 is absurd as damages. What happens in that case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure that my Noble Friend was here earlier in the Debate when I pointed out to the Committee that limitation of liability must be considered in connection with the system of compulsory insurance.

Mr. EDE: May we also share in this private conversation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You say to a man that he must. insure so that he cannot use an aeroplane without a certain expenditure and in order that this compulsory expenditure shall not be unreasonably high you limit the amount of the liability which he may have to pay.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman take the view that this principle now applies to road vehicles?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have never said so.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I am sure the Attorney-General when he reads his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will not be proud of his logic. He has tried to enunciate the principle that compulsion to insure entitles the insurer to some limit of the amount of his insurance. The Committee should pay some attention to this proposal. There has been a tendency on other Clauses of the Bill to justify them by a reference to some other body which has come to some recommendation as to what the House of Commons ought to do. On every proposal that we have brought forward we have been refused on the ground that the decision of the House of Commons has been prejudged. We must remember that we are the people who are giving the laws to the nation, and it is no defence to say, when we go to our constituencies, that these fallacious principles were imposed upon us by officials or by an outside body, not even the Gorell Committee, which was composed of people who look at these problems by the one-eyed method of the aviator, though that perhaps is not a very happy metaphor. I would rather say that this has not, been looked into by an impartial body concerned with the interests of the public.
I think that if the Committee will go into it closely, they will find that we are going to put on to the Statute Book an


entirely fallacious principle. The true measure of a rate of insurance is not the ratio of a single premium to a single potential claim; it is the ratio of the total amount of premium to the total average claim. That is the simplest and most obvious actuarial principle, and to say, as the hon. Member above the Gangway said, that because one aeroplane is liable to cause one great amount of damage, that entitles the damage to be reduced, is entirely fallacious. About 2½ per cent. of the total cost of running an aeroplane in a year will cover the, owner of that aeroplane against all third-party insurance. If the total amount of damage done by aeroplanes all over the country in the last few years were added up and fairly apportioned among all the owners of private aircraft, there would be no difficulty in private owners meeting their insurance premiums. It is a very small proportion of the total expenses of running an aircraft, and I would undertake, if the right hon. Baronet would entrust some of us on this side with the monopoly to insure against all third-party claims with regard to aviation in this country, that we should be prepared to do it for a premium amounting to no more than 1 per cent. of the total cost of running a machine for a year. Why therefore should we, for the sake of saving this infinitesimal proportion of the cost of running aeroplanes, pass a Clause which abrogates the whole principle of insurance and indeed the common law claims for damage caused?
From the lowest county court to the highest court of the realm we hear Judges constantly pressing upon juries that they must not fix the amount of damages according to the means of the defendant but solely according to the amount of damage suffered. We are abrogating an entire principle, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who defended it was not very happy, nor do I believe the right hon. Baronet is satisfied with it. I believe he has been told by his Department that he has to accept this Clause without Amendment, as he was told that he has to accept the amount of the subsidy. I appeal to the Committee not to rest upon the recommendations of an outside body against their own better judgment. This is not a proposal to limit the liability; the object of all this is to limit the premium. We can limit the premium

without limiting the liability, and I would go so far as to say, although I am not entitled to speak for anybody except myself, that if some measure could be introduced which, while retaining the principle of limiting the premium by some method which I should be prepared to suggest, would save us from putting this false principle of limiting the liability upon the Statute Book, I believe it would be possible for the Under-Secretary to conduct the progress of this Clause much more smoothly.

11.1 p.m.

Major HILLS: I can assure the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) that there is no prejudging of the case here, because the Committee is perfectly free to do what it likes in the way of amending the Bill. Nor, I submit, is there any new principle of law involved. The principles of law that are enshrined in this Clause have applied in the case of ships for a great many years. I wish to point out that a very large amount of unlimited liability is still left on the airship or aeroplane. We have inserted the words "without his actual fault or privity" into this Clause, and as I read the Clause now the restriction of the liability to £25,000 in the case of an airship only applies to an accident which is caused without the actual fault or privity of the person responsible for it. If the accident is caused by his fault or negligence, the common law liability still applies. I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with my imperfect statement of the law. I think the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr., Holdsworth) does not appreciate the real extent of the limitation which was caused by those words.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The trouble is equally as great if the other words apply. I want him to be covered in either case.

Major HILLS: In all cases where the accident is caused by the negligence of the person responsible, the common law liability remains and the damage has to be assessed by a jury.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I would like to put two points to the Attorney-General in regard to the international Convention which has been signed on this particular question. Will he inform the Committee


whether the figures adumbrated in this Clause apply equally to all countries? I would like to point out the absurdity of this particular Clause. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) suggests to me that I might point out to the Committee that if a driver killed the Attorney-General the limit of liability would be £1,000.

Mr. COCKS: I said the Home Secretary.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: But if an airship killed his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the limitation would be £25,000. The whole position is absurd. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), as far as I could hear, said it was absurd that there should be a limitation of £1,000 in the case of pictures. I agree and I am in sympathy with a person whose pictures are damaged and who finds a limitation placed on the compensation, which bears no relation to their value. But the point which I am making is this and I do not want to be sentimental about it—that the greatest pictures are human beings.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not know it at the time but I have just been informed that it is possible to take out an insurance at a comparatively low rate against damage to houses or pictures by aeroplane.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am not criticising the Noble Lord's statement, but it is not an easy matter for a poor person to find the money to take out an insurance against accident or loss of life. When we come to the conclusion that damage to pictures is a serious thing, surely we must also agree that risk to human life is a more serious thing. I appeal to the Noble Lord and his friends opposite to support me in this matter. Is this Committee going to say that a £1,000 limitation on liability£I do not care what the machine involved may be£will provide adequate compensation for loss of life? This is not a party matter. It is a question of simple justice, that the tragedies which might occur under this limitation should not be allowed to occur merely in order to save 100 or 200 people in this country £12 per annum in extra premiums. When the two things are weighed together it is obvious that they are out of all proportion. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked a question about the

Road Traffic Act. He may not have been here when I dealt with that on the previous Amendment.

Captain GUNSTON: We must all recognise the difficulty of this question, and I sympathise with the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in what he has said. We must also recognise that if there is no limitation, you will under this system of compulsory insurance—

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: There is a limitation of £25,000.

Captain GUNSTON: If you have a limit of £25,000, coupled with compulsory insurance, it would mean to a great extent killing private flying or the flying of small machines. May I suggest, on the lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Bradford with regard to personal injury, that if the owners of small machines£gliders and light aeroplanes£had to take out premiums merely against the chance of killing or injuring a person, the amount of the premium would be considerably lighter than if it included the risk of damage to property. I suggest that the Attorney-General should go into that question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: On a point of Order. Is not this exactly the question which was discussed on the previous Amendment?

Captain GUNSTON: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite was to abolish the limit altogether. The present Amendment would allow a limit up to £25,000. Surely I am entitled to make this suggestion, and I only want to help the Attorney-General. Surely I am entitled to suggest to the Attorney-General that he should consider this matter again on the lines I have suggested? If he adopted my suggestion the premiums would be lighter and private flying would not be discouraged.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. EDE: As far as I can follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, it is that an insurance policy that is on an economic basis would kill private flying. That must mean that the liabilities which these people are likely to incur are heavier than they are willing to insure against and they must be passing on some part


of their liability to the rest of the community in some form or another. That was really what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) when he suggested that it was possible for the owner of Knole Park to take out an insurance policy against damage. It only means that some other insurance company has to pay for the damage that has been caused by the person who is not sufficiently insured. It is hardly for us on this side of the Committee to have too tender a regard for the misfortunes of private insurances companies, but they must, after listening to the Noble Lord, feel that they have been rather wounded in the house of their friend this evening.

Earl WINTERTON: I am not responsible for that. I am only saying that I am informed that it is still possible to take out these policies.

Mr. EDE: I understood the Noble Lord to say previously that he had some interest in the insurance world, and I can hardly imagine an insurance company of which he was a member would feel very gratified if it had a large number of these claims for what one might call the unmet balance of damage caused. Take the point in regard to Knole Park a little further. A magnificent mansion at Wool, near Lul-worth Cove, was completely burned out. It was previously a great treasure house of art. I do not think that the size of the fire depends on the size of the match that starts it. I understand that the Great Fire of London was caused by somebody overturning a lantern into some straw. That is not the reason given for it on the Monument, I know, but recent historical research has established the fact that even in those days it was still not safe to take naked lights too near to straw when the carrier was in an inebriated condition. It cannot be suggested that a Flying Flea will cause a less-sized fire than the biggest airship that has ever been invented. The size of the fire has nothing to do with the light that causes it, and one of the principal dangers in these matters is fire. Here you have a machine that carries a considerable quantity of a highly inflammable and explosive and easily evaporated liquid. The danger from fire is, I understand, very real, and there is no ground

for retaining this differentiation of liability and throwing on other insurance companies, or on private persons who have not been insured, the balance of any liability that may be created. If the fire at Wool had, in fact, been caused by an aeroplane falling on to the mansion, would it have been fair to the insurance company with whom the mansion had been insured to expect it to make up the balance over the £5,000, or the £25,000, or the sum represented by the "pound sterling-per-pound-avoirdupois" calculation?
I suggest to the Government that while this may be very good law it is very poor logic—I understand that is the only reason, for thinking it may make good law —and those of us who do not make our living by the law but hope that the law will occasionally protect our living and our lives, would be a great deal happier if the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. FURNESS: In the course of this Debate there has been cited in favour of the principle of the limitation of liability those provisions as to the limitation of liability which prevail in the Admiralty Court. I think that Attorney-General will recollect that in that court and under the Merchant Shipping Act there is a difference between the amount a shipowner is liable to pay if there has been loss of life and the amount of his liability if there has merely been injury to property. If there has been loss of life, the limit is at a much higher figure. It is, perhaps, necessary that under this Bill there should be some limitation of liability, but I think that in the Clause as it now stands the figures are miserably low. It would be an intolerable thing, and one for which I could not vote, to pass a Clause which would limit to £1,000 the right of recovery of the widow of a man killed by a glider. I think the provisions relating to aeroplanes are far from generous, though I know so little about aeroplanes that I cannot calculate them. In the case of injury to persons or loss of life there should be a higher limit of liability than in the case of damage to property. I hope the learned Attorney-General will consider the situation in the light of the position under the Merchant Shipping Act and see fit to make the change which I have suggested.

11.24 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have been impressed by the speeches and the references, including that of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, to the question whether we could not consider inserting a higher limit in the case of personal injury. I want to make it clear that I am not in a position to give a definite undertaking now, but we will consider the point and see whether anything can be done within the general principle which I hope I have made clear, and that is that we do attach importance to not imposing an unreasonably high figure of compulsory insurance. I do not want to hold out hopes, but it may be possible to do something, because the bulk of the damage done by aircraft is to property. I have been very much impressed by what has been said and will see whether anything can be done on those lines.

Mr. M0NTAGUE: On that assurance, and assuming that we may be able adequately to discuss the matter on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 11, line 31, at the end, insert:—
Provided always that for the purpose of removing doubts it is hereby declared that the liability imposed by sub-section (1) of section nine of the principal Act refers only to damage caused to the persons or properties of third parties on the ground or water outside the confines of a recognised aerodrome or sea-drome, excluding any person with whom the owner of the aircraft shall have concluded a lawful contract whether express or implied on the subject of liability."—[Mr. Perkins.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) is out of order.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(2) Liability for damage under this section shall fall upon the operator of the aircraft, and the principal Act shall be read as though the term 'operator' were substituted for the term 'owner' wherever this expression occurs in relation to liability.

The operator shall be deemed to be the person who has the aircraft at his disposal, and who makes use thereof for his own account. If the name of the operator is not inscribed in the Aeronautical Register, or on some other official document, the owner shall be deemed to be the operator until proof to the contrary.
Under the principal Act of 1920 liability falls upon the owner and not upon the occupier of an aircraft. By "owner" is meant the person who has hired an aeroplane for a period in excess of 14 days. We move this Amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it in order to remove responsibility from the owner to the operator of the aircraft. From what has been said upon the previous Amendment, I understand that it is the intention of the Government to ratify the Rome Convention at the earliest possible moment. The moment that this Bill become law, they propose to use all their powers and to ratify the Convention next month, or the month after.
Under the Rome Convention, it was agreed by all the Powers that signed it, and consequently by all the Powers that propose to ratify it, that the liability should not fall upon the owner of an aircraft but upon the operator, the man who was responsible for running the air line. Unless the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment or some similar Amendment, there will be a great difference between our national law and the international law. To prevent that clash, I am moving this Amendment.

11.28 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment. It is true that the word used in the Rome Convention is "operator", but the definition of the word shows that there is very little practical difference between it and our word "owner", as used in the Bill. There is the further provision in the Bill which brings in the hirer for a limited period. The Bill is based upon the liability of the owner. Should the day come when we ratify the Rome Convention, we shall be justified in saying to the other Powers that we need not have the dual system under which, for the purpose of the Convention, we use the word "operator" we shall be entitled to say that the provisions of this Bill, as it is drafted, with the word "owner"; and bringing in the hirer, produce substantially the


same effect as is produced in the Rome Convention by the word "operator", which is defined by Article 4 as the person who has the aircraft at his disposal and makes use thereof for his own account. This is one of the cases in which you find a certain phrase used in an international convention and not exactly squaring with our own law. It probably does not square exactly with the legal language of any of the countries involved, and each of them is entitled, when it comes to put the Convention into active force, to use its own terminology and its own words, if they produce substantially the same result. I hope, after that explanation, that my hon. Friend may see his way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. PERKINS: All these things are dependent upon whether the Government intend to ratify the Rome Convention or not. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give us some indication in that respect?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At present the Rome Convention is not in a final state. Conversations are still going on between the' parties to it, and I think there is a sub-committee considering, in particular, Article 14 (b). The other parties to it have not yet ratified it, and I think I am right in saying that no country has gone so far as we are going in this Bill in substantially giving statutory effect to its provisions. We desire that our law shall carry out the Rome Convention in its final form. In order to ratify it, it is not, in my view, necessary that we should adopt the ipsissima verba of these particular articles. So far as this Article is concerned, we have in my view ratified it and carried it out by the words used in the Bill. When the Convention takes its final form, there may be matters in which further provisions would be necessary, but substantially we have gone a long way to embody its terms in this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 11, line 36, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 3, on page 12.—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41. at the beginning, to insert:

Nothing in this section or in section nine of the principal Act shall affect the operation of the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, or any contract for carriage of passengers or goods by air in so tar as the contract provides for determining or limiting the liability of the carrier there under, and.
As the Committee are no doubt aware, the question of the liability of an owner for passengers is covered by the Act of 1932, which schedules the Warsaw Convention. This Amendment is put down to make it clear that nothing in the Clause will affect the provisions of the earlier Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.34 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I desire to draw attention to the question of the liability of foreign pilots coining to this country in regard to third-party risk, and to ask the Government whether, when the Bill becomes law, they propose to use their powers under it to compel foreign pilots who come to this country to have a certificate of third-party insurance. I raise the point because some time ago I landed in Germany without the necessary certificate for third-party insurance, and I was not able to proceed until I got a certificate to show that I was insured. I want to know if a foreign pilot, whether he comes from a country which has or has not ratified the Rome Convention, will be compelled to produce a certificate to show that. he has adequate assurance against third-party risks.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member probably did not hear the statement I made earlier. I cannot add anything to what I said then.

CLAUSE 13—(Provision to be made in respect of aircraft against third-party risks.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 11, to leave out "in the United Kingdom."
This is purely drafting. The proper place for these words is in the Second Schedule, where they now appear.

Amendment agreed to.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I beg to more, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "exceeding," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
twenty-five pounds or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or three months imprisonment.
This is to put the pilot on an equality with the motorist. We wish to reduce the maximum fine from £200 to £50 for a technical offence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We can always argue about these penalties one way or the other. My hon. Friend relies on the analogy of the motorist. We rely on the fact that in the principal Act this was the penalty. I cannot accept the Amendment.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a little further consideration to the principle that underlies the Amendment. It is true that the maximums mentioned were originally as fixed by the Act of 1920. Since that time activity in aviation has greatly increased, but many people are doubtful whether the appreciation of that activity by benches of magistrates has increased to the same extent, and we feel that there is a real danger that, when a high maximum is placed on what may be a technical offence, heavy penalties are imposed. We have endeavoured to safeguard the case of a serious offence by a person who, either by misconduct or through gross negligence, fails to insure by giving the alternative of permitting the prosecution to proceed by indictment, when there may be a penalty of three months' imprisonment I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to weigh the different position of aviation since 1920 and consider whether these penalties cannot be reduced to some extent.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. There are two types of offence. There is that of the owner of aircraft and that of the pilot. A fine of £25 might mean ruin to the pilot, but to the owner of many aircraft a fine of £200 might mean nothing. At present the maximum fine to be imposed is £200, and I think that we can leave

it to the discretion of the Court to make the penalty fit the crime, which is the principle already accepted in the courts. I have heard that some men put on their old suits when going before the magistrates for motoring offences, and I think that something of the kind might well meet the case here.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In spite of the fact that there is this maximum, I have before me a list of the actual fines imposed, and the bulk of them are quite small amounts, which shows that the magistrates do exercise discretion.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 14 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18—(Provision for giving effect to a certain Convention signed in Rome.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GARRO JONES: While I must congratulate you, Captain Bourne, upon the rapidity with which you are dealing with the Clauses, I am not able to keep pace with the proceedings. I have not been able to follow each Clause as it has been put from the Chair, and at the moment I am in ignorance as to which Clause we are passing. I would therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give an explanation of the Clause which is before the Committee at the moment in order that we may just keep it under observation.

11.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am delighted to oblige the hon. Gentleman. We have reached Clause 18, which provides for the making of an Order in Council for giving effect to the Rome Convention, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order. I have already taken the opportunity on an earlier Amendment to state the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Convention. Substantially we are carrying out the bulk of the provisions in this Clause, and the Order in Council will have to do little more than make the terminology already in the Bill applicable to those who will come under it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If we pass this Clause, will it in any way interfere with the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the particular question raised on a previous Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, the undertaking which I have given is to reconsider the matter with regard to the limitation of liability, which comes under the Bill. The Rome Convention is outside our immediate control, and I cannot say whether my noble Friend will be prepared to put any modifications before the other signatories of the Rome Convention.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20—(Transfer to Secretary of State of Air Council's functions with respect to civil aviation.)

11.45 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 27, after "document," to insert "or act."
The Clause deals with the transfer to the Secretary of State of functions of the Air Council in dealing with civil aviation, and this is merely a drafting Amendment to make the original intention clear.

Mr. GARRO JONES: It seems to me that what the right hon. Gentleman has said applies to Clause 21, and not to Clause 20.

Sir P. SASSOON: The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that the Sub-section extends to acts of the Air Council which may not be strictly in the nature of documents.

Mr. GARRO JONES: What Subsection?

Sir P. SASSOON: Sub-section (3) of Clause 20.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 18, line 28, leave out "or issued," and insert "issued or done."

In line 30, after "document," insert "or act."

In line 33, leave out "or issued," and insert "issued or done."—[Sir P. Sassoon.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Amendment of Section 13 of 7 and 8 Geo 5. c. 51.)

Motion made, and. Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.46 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: On a point of Order. Is it possible for us to give more intelligent application to the Bill than we can do when the Clauses are being put through at so rapid a pace?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to raise that point he must move to report Progress.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again".
I move to report Progress, not to cause trouble but to protest against Acts of Parliament going through at this terrific rate, and at a time when everybody wants to go home. Hon. Members are saying "Aye," when they do not even know what is being read. It seems to me to be an obsolutely wrong principle. I should like to assist the Patronage Secretary at any time, but seeing that there is another day when this business could be done, I think we ought to give adequate time to it.

11.47 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I think the Under-Secretary has answered any questions that have been put to him. If 113n. Members are in any doubt as to what is being done, and they will put their questions, he will do his best to explain. On a good many of these Clauses there are no Amendments and the Deputy Chairman has put the Clauses in the usual course. If any hon. Member rises in his place on the putting of the question, "That the Clause stand part," the Under-Secretary will again do his bust to explain. The majority of the Amendments set down are purely of a crafting nature and therefore it should not take us very long to dispose of the remaining Clauses.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I have no wish to prolong the proceedings unduly, but I think the Patronage Secretary was


overstating the case when he suggested that it was the duty of the Opposition to inaugurate discussion on important Clauses. As I understand the procedure, in matters of routine, Consequential Amendments and so on, the Chair puts the Question, without any explanation being offered from the Government Front Bench, but where any matter of substance has to be put before the House it is the common. Practice for the Minister to tell us what it is all about. We have here Clauses which have been passed at a rate which is rapid even considering the subject we are discussing. We are dealing with a considerable number of important matters which ought not to be passed at the speed at which we have passed the last six Clauses. May I call the attention of the Committee to those Clauses? Hon. Members will find them, for convenience of reference, in the arrangement of Clauses. Can anybody tell me what Clause we are on?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise this on this Motion to report Progress.

Mr. GARRO JONES: What may I not raise, Captain Bourne?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise Clauses which have already been passed by the Committee.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I am not raising them; I am only endeavouring to find out which clause we are on. We are going to pass in about five minutes eight clauses, every one of which is important. Clause 22 (Management and disposal of land vested in Secretary of State for purposes of Civil Aviation) —surely that should be carefully considered by the Committee. Clause 23 is important. Then there are Clauses 24 to 31, eight clauses which I believe the Government wish to get to-night. How far are the Government proposing to go? At this hour it would be a good thing if we were to postpone any further discussion until we have time to go into the matter thoroughly. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, because we on these benches are gateful for an extremely unusual happening in this Parliament. We have been able to secure a promise from the Government that they will consider the views of the

people who are supposed to be passing this legislation. Therefore, I am extremely gratified with the action of the Government, but I think that they should agree not to press this Bill any further to-night. It is an extremely unpopular Bill. It has an enormous amount of opposition in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] There is a great amount of opposition in quarters which understand what the Bill is going to do. I know hon. Members voted in favour of the Bill, but the voting, I regret to say, was not a true criterion of the views of hon. Members opposite. I say that quite inoffensively, but it is beyond dispute that time and again in this Parliament hon. Members have made speeches expressing their greatest doubts about some proposals and even their convinced opposition, but when it comes to voting they have faded away into thin air. I ask only for reasonable treatment of this Bill.

11.54 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I would assure my hon. Friend that we want to do what is reasonable. If the Clauses we are now approaching were Clauses which raised, as the Order Paper might show, matters of controversy, there would be great force in what the hon. Gentleman says, but one is entitled to judge this by looking at the Order Paper as well as at the Clauses themselves. The Bill has been before the House for some time, and we all know the proper care which hon. Gentlemen have exercised in examining it. I do not dispute that there are points for elaborate discussion, The discussion has been very helpful. As far as the printed clauses are concerned we are reaching Clauses which are of a supplementary character. The best proof that they are not regarded as raising points which require elaborate discussion is that there is not a single comment upon them on the Order Paper. When we come to the new Clauses, that is a serious matter, and it is not proposed to enter upon them to-night. If we can get to the end of the Clauses in the Bill it will be a. piece of work which by cooperation of hon. Members opposite we can fairly well do, and I do not think it is asking too much. Time must be provided after the holiday for dealing with the new Clauses.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I could not see how we could possibly get through the Order Paper to-night. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 22.—(Management and disposal of land vested in Secretary of State for purposes of civil aviation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.58 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: Can we have an explanation of this Clause? It appears to deal with land vested in various Departments.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is rather a complicated matter, but the effect of the Clause is to give power with regard to the management and disposal of land which is vested in the Secretary of State for the purposes of civil aviation.

CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to property and rights of Secretary of State.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. KELLY: I have tried to grasp the meaning of this Clause but have not been able. It seems to give the Secretary of State powers which are already possessed by him.

11.59 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The purpose of the Clause is to secure that land vested in the Secretary of State for the time being for civil aviation purposes shall pass to his successor, and any of his acts shall be binding on his successor.

Mr. KELLY: How does it affect Northern Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think it has any damaging effect on Northern Ireland. I cannot give a categorical answer at the moment, but I will look into the position.

Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Transitional and incidental provisions as to certain Orders in Council, etc.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 22, line 14, to leave out "Part I or Part III of," and to insert:
any of the provisions of the principal Act and.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27—(Exercise of powers of Board of Trade.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.2 a.m.

Mr. KELLY: What is meant by this Clause? We know certain aviation centres on the coast where we have endeavoured to get the Board of Trade to intervene on behalf of those affected by reason of the operation of aeroplanes. Does this Clause mean that where we now have to approach the Board of Trade we shall have in future to go to the Air Ministry?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has exercised his usual care in reading this Clause before making his speech. All that it says is:
Anything required or authorised under this Act to be done by, to or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to or before the President of the Board, any secretary, under-secretary or assistant secretary of the Board or any person authorised in that behalf by the President.
This is a common form Clause.

CLAUSE 28.—(Application to Scotland.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 22 line 40. after "Act". to insert "as amended by this Act".

This again is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, line 22, leave out "paragraph 1 of".

In line 26, leave out "in paragraph 2 of the said Part II".—(The Attorney-General]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

12.4 a.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Why is it necessary under Sub-section (3) of this Clause to make a different provision in regard to Scotland, as to land purchased for aerodromes, than appears to be made in the case of England? If it is not different, why is it necessary to have these differing words?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that I am not an expert on the mysteries of Scottish law, but there are certain differences between the law in Scotland and the law in this country, and this Clause is necessary to cover those differences.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I will withdraw my opposition to the Clause if the learned Attorney-General will undertake to assure himself before the Report stage that there is no injustice being done to Scotland in this matter.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. EDE: Only a few moments ago the Lord Advocate was on the Front bench, and it is very regrettable that at a time when an exposition of Scottish law is required he should have left it to his learned brother who deals with the law of England. I am sure that at this early hour of the morning it would have been a very agreeable thing to start Oaks day by being assured that this Scottish question can safely be left to those of us who want to go home so that we can take our wives to Epsom.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Interpretation.)

12.6 a.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 25, line 22, after "material," to insert "in relation to any fact or particular."
This is a drafting Amendment to make clear to what the word "material" has a definite relation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 43, at the end, insert,—

(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in this Act the expression loss or damage,' and in section nine of the principal Act the expression 'damage or loss' include, in relation to persons, loss of life and personal injury."—

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to.— [Sir J. Simon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, 9th June.

Orders of the Day — COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Burgin.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(The Spindles Board.)

Lords Amendment: In line 10, leave out "which shall be called, and is".

12.9 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These Amendments can conveniently, with your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, be taken together.

Mr. KELLY: I hope not. We want to discuss them.

Dr. BURGIN: With the exception of two, they are purely drafting. If the hon. Gentleman desires to discuss the two relating to Clause 14, I shall be prepared to offer an explanation of them. The particular Amendment before the House is purely drafting, as are five others. That leaves only the two to Clause 14 which introduce the word "recklessly". Under that Clause the owner of every cotton mill has to send certain returns to the Spindles Board. As originally drafted,


any person who sent in a return was liable to a penalty if he caused a return to be sent which he knew, or reasonably could be expected to know, was incorrect in any material particular. The change now made by their Lordships is—

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving permission for the whole of these Amendments to be taken at one time instead of being discussed separately?

Mr. SPEAKER: A great many of the Amendments are of a drafting nature, and the reason why they are being dealt with together by he Parliamentary Secretary is, I take it, to save time.

Mr. KELLY: I have no desire other than to save time, but I wish to have the opportunity of discussing at least two of these Amendments, and if they are to be put all together, it will be very difficult for me to do that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments will not be put all together. Each Amendment will be put separately. The Minister is explaining them all at the same time for the convenience of the House.

Dr. BURGIN: I was explaining that, with the exception of two of them, these Amendments are purely drafting. With regard to the two first Amendments to Clause 14, they make a slight change in the drafting, and in consequence in the meaning, or tile Bill. Under Clause 14 as drafted it was an offence for the owner of a mill to send in a return which contained an incorrect statement, and it was to be a criminal offence, punishable, if the return was either known to be false or could reasonably be expected to be known to be incorrect. The change which has been made in another place is that, instead of a person being required to be reasonably expected to know a return to be incorrect, which was rather a vague charge to make against an individual, to which several Members of the Committee took exception, the words
knowingly or recklessly makes in any return.
an incorrect statement have been inserted: that is to say, with such absence of care as not to care whether what he said was right or wrong. I cannot

imagine anybody taking exception to that, and incidentally these words are identical with weds which this House has already put in another recent Bill, relating to sugar. These are the only two alterations which in any way touch the wording of the Bill. The others are purely consequential and drafting.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think the hon. Gentleman is right in pointing out that the Amendments on Clause 14 are the ouly Amendments that matter, but he will pardon my telling him that I am not at all sure about the argument which he has put forward as to the insertion of the word "recklessly." The impression that we gain on the face of it is that it will require a man to be a very desperate person before he is caught within the ambit of this Clause if that word remains in it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better wait until we get to that particular Amendment.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to

CLAUSE 3.—(The Advisory Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 26, leave out "thereof," and insert "of the Committee."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—[Dr. Burgin.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the alteration made in the drafting in another place. Five out of these eight Amendments are such that I do not take any exception to them, but this particular Amendment, it seems to me, far from being an improvement, makes the sense worse and is certainly worse English. Probably every hon. Member from time to time falls into the trap of using loose expressions or even bad English, but that is no reason why we should have these faults and errors in Acts of Parliament. Sometimes one finds that the language of an Act of Parliament is extremely complicated, so complicated indeed that sometimes it is very difficult for the ordinary person to understand it. This is not one of those cases, but the alteration which is


proposed is not sound and it would not be advisable to include it.
The Amendment suggests that instead of the word "thereof" in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3, there should be introduced the words "of the committee". At present the words in the Bill read as follow:
At any meeting of the Advisory Committee, three shall be a quorum, and the committee shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof.
Now, what can be the possible reason for including the words "of the committee" instead of "thereof "? The only possible reason I can find is that they were afraid in another place that "thereof" might be taken to refer to the quorum. To my mind it is not sensible to suppose that the word, "thereof" could refer to the quorum, because a quorum cannot have a vacancy in it. If this House is always to accept any so-called improvements of drafting from another place without any examination, I think we may see in our Acts of Parliament still further confusion and more sloppiness of language than we have at the present time.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Surely the words which the Lords suggest make the Sub-section clearer.

Mr. PETHERICK: No, they do not

CLAUSE 7—(Funds of Spindles Board.)

CLAUSE 14—(Returns and Statistics in respect of cotton mills.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 33, leave out from the first "person" to "in" in line 38 and insert:
knowingly or recklessly makes in any return required by this sub-section to be sent to the Board a statement false.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12.18 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We come now to the point I wish to raise. The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that the word "recklessly" had appeared in a previous Act of Parliament. Frankly, the word is new to me so far as I remember Acts of Parliament. I am wondering what is the reason for the

insertion of this word in the Bill. It is only about 20 minutes ago that we passed a Clause in another Bill where such words are not used at all—I refer to Clause 68 of the Air Navigation Bill. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the insertion of these words will make it easier for a person who offends against the spindles Act to commit the offence than would have been the case with the words that were sent to the Lords in the first place? That is a point which I think ought to be cleared up. I would add that while we want to put this point on record to-night, it is not our intention to carry our protest to a Division.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: As one who in Committee suggested some alteration on the lines of what has been done by another place, I regard the Amendment as a great improvement. In Committee I protested against manufacturers being looked upon, as criminals because a simple error had been made, and I think the word "recklessly," is quite clear. If a man gave instructions that a form was to be filled up on the principle of "Think of a number and put it in," that would be reckless, but if a clerk merely makes an error the manufacturer ought not to be punished for it. I do not think this alteration will lead to greater mistakes. It is not right to assume that even textile manufacturers are prepared recklessly to make statements; they ought to be treated as human beings, and if an error is made they ought not to be punished if it is an excusable error.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. KELLY: It is unfair to the House that this Measure should have to be considered at this time of night, and that we should be called upon to consider an Amendment made by another place. We had put into the Clause a form of words which would have sufficiently protected any textile manufacturers—the words "could reasonably be expected." Now it has to be proved that the manufacturer has done this thing not only "knowingly" but "recklessly." I can imagine the great play the Courts will make with that word "recklessly" It seems to be something put in to protect certain people, whether or not it be to the advantage of the industry, and I hope the House will divide against the Amendment.

12.23 a.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member is entirely in error in suggesting that these new words which are to be inserted are difficult to prove. On the contrary they are far easier to prove. "Reckless" is an expression well known to the English law. "Reckless driving" is an instance which must occur to every hon. Member. "Reckless" means done with a degree of positive commission which it is easy to determine. What is "reasonably possible to be known" or "reasonably expected to be known" is much more indefinite. This charge will render the task of the prosecution easier in proving a case.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. EDE: It is news to me, as one who has to listen to arguments about the word "reckless," that it is easily capable of definition. I spend a great part of two mornings each week hearing all sorts of arguments about driving "recklessly" and driving "without due care and attention." From what the hon. Gentleman said first in explaining the change I thought that he wanted to cover the case of a form which had been filled in "without due care and attention," which is regarded, at any rate in the example he chose, as being something less than reckless. Those who had to determine a question concerning one of these forms might well say, having the analogy mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary before them "This is not a case of recklessness; it only shows carelessness." I suggest that the words now to be inserted might provide a wider loophole than the Minister seemed to realise.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. PRITT: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend on this side of the House, but in this case I think the Treasury bench are submitting to us a change which is an improvement. I venture to think that the analogy given in explaining the word "reckless" was not perhaps the best one, because reckless driving is a thing ex-

tremely difficult to defile; but in this case we are dealing with reports to some authority which have to be made out on a form, and while, of course, lay magistrates do not understand that sort of thing, in the case of a, form—

Mr. EDE: Nor counsel either, judging by their contradictory arguments.

Mr. PRITT: We who are practised in the law know that the word "reckless" is a word that has constant application when a man makes a statement on a piece of paper. The new word has a narrowing effect, but it will make something more definite, which is desirable in all legislation.

Mr. BURKE: The Amendment leaves out also the words "acting on behalf of". Is that not rather a weakness of the newer drafting?

Dr. BURGIN: It does not matter on whose behalf a person acts; if any person makes a return, there is a liability.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CROWN LANDS BILL.

Captain Briscoe, Captain Ernest Evans, Mr. Lansbury, and Mr. Maxwell nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Crown Lands Bill.—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.